Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual report to Mayor"

See other formats


STACKS ^^ 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



rov'FRNMPNT INFORMATION CENTER 
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



JUIN A D lyiJD 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 90186 3036 



_ ANNUAL REPORT TO MAYOR 



DOCUMENTS 

SEP 12 1973 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



:'-£ 



Submitted by 
JOHN JAY FERDON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 



July 1, 1972 - June 30, 1973 



CONTENTS 

MUNICIPAL COURT DIVISION 1 

APPELLATE DIVISION 22 

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 24 

OBSCENITY PROSECUTIONS 28 

VICE CONTROL 30 

BUSINESS INVESTIGATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION 
SECTION 33 

GRAND JURY 36 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 38 

Criminal Division 38 

Psychiatric Division 40 

Aid to Families With Dependent 

Children Division 42 

BUREAU OF FAMILY RELATIONS 46 

UNIFORM RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF 

SUPPORT DIVISION 51 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
SAN Fl SCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



<v 



/ *w-?7 



MUNICIPAL COURT 

Introduction 

The Municipal Court Division has the multiple responsibil- 
ities of initiating all felony prosecutions, processing felony 
cases in the Municipal Court, prosecuting motions to revoke 
probation, prosecuting all misdemeanor cases, supervising and 
assisting the Police Department in the preparation of arrest 
and search warrants, analyzing defendants' motions for diversion, 
issuing District Attorney complaint citations, and holding 
complaint citation hearings prior to prosecution. These various 
functions will be treated in detail in the pages following. 
Initiating Felony Prosecutions 

Felony prosecutions in the Municipal Court are initiated 
either by issuance of an arrest warrant or, in the vast majority 
of cases, by issuing complaints following an evaluation of "no- 
warrant" felony arrests. 

"No-warrant" felony arrests are those arrests made by 
police officers when they observe acts or obtain information 
which provide them with reasonable and probable cause to believe 
that a felony has been committed. 

Following a "no-warrant" felony arrest, the case is investi- 
gated by the Inspectors Bureau of the Police Department and then 
evaluated in conference by a representative of the Inspectors 
Bureau and an experienced senior Assistant District Attorney. 

To assure a just and proper disposition of these cases, the 

-1- 



reviewing Assistant District Attorney must possess a thorough 
knowledge of the current Federal and State criminal and constitu- 
tional law. Both the Federal and State Appellate Courts, espe- 
cially in recent years, continually review and reinterpret the 
laws of arrest, search and seizure, confessions and admissions, 
criminal identification and other areas of criminal law, re- 
quiring continued time and effort by all prosecuting attorneys 
to remain abreast of these developments. 

After the evaluation of the "no-warrant" felony arrest, a 
decision is made to initiate a felony prosecution, initiate a 
prosecution on a less serious misdemeanor charge, or to discharge 
the arrested person. This decision must be made within two days 
following the initial arrest. In this fiscal year, the Muni- 
cipal Court Division handled 15,616 "no-warrant" felony arrest 
charges. This was a decrease of 980 charges from the 16,596 
cases of the previous fiscal year. 

A total of 50.4% or 7,875 charges resulted in felony prose- 
cutions. This figure includes 7,860 charges which were the 
same charges for which the defendants were arrested or which were 
included in the same subject matter breakdown, such as dangerous 
drugs. Fifteen charges were rebooked or recharged into a differ- 
ent subject matter category. In addition, 11.2% or 1,756 
charges were reduced to misdemeanor charges and prosecuted in 
the general courts. Thus 9,616 charges, or 61.6% of all charges 
arising out of tto-warrant" felony arrests resulted in prosecution. 
Taking into account constitutional as well as factual limitations 

-2- 



it was concluded that the evidence in 5,985 charges, 38.47* of 
the cases, was insufficient for prosecution and the defendants 
were discharged. 

In the fiscal year 1971-1972, 59.4% of all felony arrests 
resulted in prosecution (felony and misdemeanor) whereas in the 
1972-1973 fiscal year, 61.6% of all felony arrests resulted in 
prosecution. 

The following table illustrates the types of offenses 
evaluated and the results of evaluation of the fiscal year 
1972-1973. 



-3- 



NO-WARRANT FELONY ARREST CHARGES 
July 1972 - June 1973 



OFFENSE 


FELONY 
PROSEC . 


DISCHARGED 


REBOOKED 
AS OTHER 
FELONY 


MISD. 
PROSEC . 


TOTAL 


DRUGS : 














Opiate 


1,144 


726 


- 


17 


1 


,887 


Marijuana 


1,316 


724 


2 


362 


2 


,404 


Dangerous Drugs 


471 


575 


- 


71 


1 


,117 


Other Drug Offenses 


142 


112 


- 


10 




264 


HOMICIDE 


81 


12 


- 


- 




93 


VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER 


19 


4 


- 


1 




24 


DRIVING OFFENSES 


62 


19 


- 


26 




107 


DEADLY WEAPONS 


230 


109 


- 


80 




419 


RAPE 


52 


108 


- 


2 




162 


OTHER SEX OFFENSES 


169 


80 


m 


10 




259 


CONSPIRACY 


31 


209 


- 


11 




251 


BOOKMAKING 


80 


5 


- 


- 




85 


CHECK & FORGERY 


423 


154 


1 


48 




626 


THEFT 


311 


174 


3 


69 




557 


AUTO THEFT 


325 


344 


- 


43 




712 


ASSAULT 


819 


638 


2 


691 


2 


,150 


BURGLARY 


885 


279 


- 


133 


1 


,297 


RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY 548 


1,083 


4 


101 


1 


,736 


ROBBERY 


571 


431 


3 


25 


1 


,030 


OTHER FELONIES 


181 


199 


- 


56 




436 


TOTAL: 


7,860 


5,985 


15 


1,756 


15 


,616 




50.3% 


38.4% 


0.1% 


11.2% 


100% 



-4- 



The inability by victims of crimes to identify potential 
defendants or allegedly stolen property, and the unavailability 
of necessary witnesses were major factors resulting in the dis- 
charge of cases. 
Felony Cases in Municipal Courts 

Upon the filing of a felony complaint or the issuance of 
a felony arrest warrant and consequent arrest, the Municipal 
Court acquires jurisdiction over the case for the purpose of 
conducting a preliminary hearing before a Magistrate to deter- 
mine whether there is reasonable and probable cause to require 
the defendant to stand trial on the charge in Superior Court. 

During the period from July 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, 
five Municipal Court Departments conducted preliminary hearings. 
An Assistant District Attorney was assigned to each department 
to prepare and present the necessary evidence and supporting 
legal authorities at these hearings. The same Assistant District 
Attorney in each department also prepared and presented evidence 
and legal authorities in misdemeanor cases where trial was held 
by the Court without jury. In addition, a sixth department 
handles all felony arraignments, felony bail settings, pre- 
liminary hearing assignments to the five previously mentioned 
departments, fugitives from justice from other states, and 
negotiating dispositions of felony cases without further prose- 
cution. The work of this Court requires the assignment of a 
second Assistant District Attorney. 

A reorganization of the Municipal Court was instituted, 

-5- 



and on January 2, 1973, three departments were assigned pre- 
liminary hearings on a full-time basis, and an additional 
department on a half-time basis. The misdemeanor arraignment 
functions previously conducted by these departments were con- 
solidated into two departments, together with master jury 
calendar functions. 

During the fiscal year 1972-1973, 9,544 felony cases were 
filed in the Municipal Court, which is an increase of 1,852 
cases over the previous year. 

A total of 7,048 defendants received preliminary hearings 
in the general courts. During the preliminary hearing, the 
prosecution has the burden to establish that a crime has been 
committed and that there are reasonable grounds for believing 
the defendant before the Court may have committed the crime. 
The defense attorney may cross-examine prosecution witnesses 
and present evidence and legal authorities on behalf of the 
defendant which may require a reevaluation of the case by the 
Assistant District Attorney, or a dismissal of the case by the 
Magistrate. Dismissals in Municipal Court are routinely re- 
quested by the Assistant District Attorney where the cases 
were successfully presented to the Grand Jury prior to pre- 
liminary hearing. In such an event, the case would proceed as 
a felony and be assigned directly to Superior Court; thus 
obviating the need for a preliminary hearing. 

During the reported fiscal year, 42.77«, of the felony cases 
which were filed were held for trial in Superior Court, 1.97 

-6- 



were indicted, 33,1% plead guilty to misdemeanor charges, 1.67o 
were discharged for a guilty plea, 19.7% were discharged, and 
1.0% were subject to other procedures, such as certification to 
Superior Court for determination of the mental competency of the 
defendant to stand trial, or certification to Youth Guidance 
Authority where the defendant is under age, and the issuance of 
bench warrants for the arrest of defendants who did not appear. 
The following table illustrates the types of offenses in- 
volved and the dispositions made: 



-7- 



H 
O 
H 



h- 1 M 

•P* 

On lO 

s*a 



• *o 

VO 00 

*>S 



On Cn 
5*3 Ui 



4> 
8*2 



VO 




.p* 


•P* 








to 


V 








• 


O 


(-* 


CO 


!-• 


"»J 


«*4 


CO 


o 


-P* 


5*3 


vO 


-*J 


ON 


CO 


Co 


CO 








CO 


II 








• 


»-» 


(-» 




to 


M 


ON 


CO 


00 


ON 


5*3 


•P* 


ON 


ON 


ON 



VO 


« 






• 


00 


l-» 


h-» 


**J 


00 


vD Cn 


00 


5*9 


o 


to Ui 


*0 



•p* Co M 



to tO |~* 
O **J O 



i ro 



■P* O CO 



i-3 



a 



a 

"si 

H« CO 

rr 




^ U3 M H h-»H» rOCOO 

4*. h lO ^VOslWMONtONH CO 00 -P* O tO 
O Cn00 t-» ON|-»N)**Jj>vOvO**J sl*«JWCN H 



CO CO IO tO IO MO> 

v© cn M Cn vO On Co h M W l Co 00 -J -P* 

M hOCO 00 -P*00*«JH-*t*04>ON> ON -P*vD On 



tO H W H 

CO W H tO O On CO t-» I IvJ H I I On vO O «*J 



CO COON CO O* Oi N 4> N in N M On to 00 On 

M ON VO M lnONln»flHN00 to WN5C0 In) 



tO M N> I — » I — » 

ONO»-»COIvOONCCf-»Cnl • M I H4NU1 



•P* -P* to oo co a i-»i i i i I lotococoO 



on on ro I I I I I M I I I I I to M H-» 



o 


V 
















o 


Cn 


4> 


Cn 


Cn 


VO 


00 


Cn 


-P* 


5*9 


■P* 


O 


00 


-o 


vO 


00 


M 


vO 




•P* 


■P* 


*o 


to 


M 


ON 


ON 


CO 



■P* tO N) K N M On CO CO 

■*JOC0*OOON00tO ON vOONnI vl 
OO^HslvlHMNl oo4>vooni-» 



o 

3 

a 

CO 



>x 

IP 

w 

O 



H W 
co O 

a 



s 

TJ M 
f 4 CO 



5 



CO 
CO 
O M 
H O 

X 
M 



M 



O 

H 
M 
O 






CO 
C_| On 

C CO 
< 



H 
O 



-8- 



Misdemeanor Ca ses 

During the fiscal year, the departments of the Municipal 
Court assigned to hear the criminal and traffic matters handled 
70,745 charges based on violations of such laws, exclusive of 
parking violations. The following charts and text will set forth 
the participation of the District Attorney's staff in the prose- 
cution of these many matters. 

During the first six months of the 1972-1973 fiscal year, 
persons arrested or cited in lieu of arrest for misdemeanors 
committed in San Francisco appeared in one of the five general 
departments of the Municipal Court where the disposition was 
determined by guilty plea, court trial, transfer to the jury 
department, or dismissals. Felony arrests resulting in mis- 
demeanor prosecutions were also subject to the exclusive juris- 
diction of these Municipal Court Departments. Two special 
departments heard and determined all vehicle and traffic offenses 
except where a jury was demanded; and one traffic department 
handled related criminal offenses, such as resisting arrest and 
disturbing the peace. Each of these seven departments had an 
assigned Assistant District Attorney. 

Additional departments held jury trials and heard related 
matters. These misdemeanor jury matters are treated separately 
in this report. 

The general departments of the Municipal Court handled 
15,587 misdemeanor charges during the first half of the fiscal 
year 1972-1973. Over 5,600 misdemeanor charges resulted in 

.9- 



convictions. Although many charges were dismissed, 2,345 charges 
were dismissed because the defendant pled guilty or was found 
guilty of another misdemeanor offense. Most of the remaining 
2,533 dismissals were due to failure of the victim to identify 
the defendants or to respond to court when directed, inability 
of a victim to identify property, and reevaluation of the charges 
by the Assistant Districts Attorney assigned to. the "case based 
upon further investigation- or information. 

A total of 1,338 charges were not prosecuted because the 
defendants failed to appear or the defendants were minors. In 
these cases, Bench Warrants (BW) were issued or the charges were 
transferred to Youth Guidance Center for proceedings against the 
minors. Prosecution was terminated or delayed in 269 other 
charges. This resulted because of the possibility of drug prob- 
lems or mental instability which required evaluation by experts, 
and because many misdemeanors occurred at the same time as a 
felony charge for which the defendant was being prosecuted. In 
such cases, the misdemeanor trails or follows the felony while 
the latter charge is prosecuted. 

The following table illustrates the types of offenses and 
statutory sections involved in the general and traffic depart- 
ments of the Municipal Courts for the first half of the fiscal 
year 1972-1973. 



-10- 



H 
O 



Cn 

w 

On 
VI 
-P» 



tO 

w 

Cn 



to 

w 

Cn 
CO 

co 



CO 
CO 

co 



tO 

ON 

vo 



u> 

■*> 
to 

00 



Cn 

Cn 
Co 
vi 



o 

H 

w 
pa 



CD 
O 



> 
2! 

CO 



Cn 

O 



a pcm 

3 H-3 

03 ft ft 

P O 

H< 

pd o 

3 0) 

3 ft 

H« 



OO 

rfd 

3*fl> 

n 
o ro 

HO 

n 3 co 
oj ft»d 
tt>oj ro 
f-hn« ro 
h* d a. n ao 

O fD o 
g^vO ft) H° 
03 l-t ft C 

a h« n^ o 
(D s o I 

s ?rs o 
aoj 

ft oj 

H-00 
O fD 

3 

03 



< 

W 

CO> ffi 
C 3 M 

ft 

o 



Sua 



3 

00 

H° 

3 



> 
3 
ft 
O 



03 

•3 

(!) 
3 H 

ac3 

fD B 

a'd 

ro 

o n 

3 

pooo 

ro 

< 

o 

** 

r 1 

O 

n> 

3 

03 



o 

w 



CO ON H-» I- 1 vO M 
to .p»vOOrOOOcn 

H-» vj N3 vo OJ H vO H 



to cn i~» i-« 

to room to h 1 

O vO to cn -P» to vi vO 



Cn Co 

O vo ro 4> (-» to >-* N> 

O vo to o on 4> co on 



j- 1 ro i-» 

Co coro4^roo>U3fO 

■P* OWW^^siO 



00 I I I l-» M I 



4> ro co 

ro -P* Co cn 4> vO to co 
»-» CO 4> O O O to J> 



to to H- 1 

t-« h-> ro co to .p* t-» t-» 

VO H nJ ^ N) O O ■!> 

On On CO vl vO 4> -P* O 



23 
O 



2! 
H 
O 



pa x 

CO M 
O 

> 

H 
H 

a 

o 



g M 



CO 

3 
tJ 
•3 

8^ 

ft M 
- .O 

aS 
n> pd 

H« 

3 

►a 

3 
fD 

3 
o 



o 

3 

ro 
ft 



22 



W 
> 
O 
PI 



r 4 

a 

o 
o 

ca 
co 
o 
w 

25 
W 



5 

g > 

Cd co 

M > 
23 

o 



•P- 
to CO 

Cn O 



co vi vi 



h-» vl On tO CO I 



W W 

co H 

H H 

CO H$ 

H 



O 
23 

R 



55 
O 

CO 

H 



s: > 

W CO 
> CO 

T) > 

SR 

CO H 



H 



O 

H 

W 

pa 



> 
H 

pa 



4^ to .p- H-> I-* 

NHHM WO W 
00 ON -P* 4> -^J ON VO 



-^J H- 1 !-* 
tO 4> ON 

M^O 



(— « u> to 

S3 H vl Nl NJ 4> 

O vj Cn On o to CO 



CO 

w 



H W W VO ON 

C3 W CO H Ui 4^ O 



to 



HH(^ rO 

W S3 H VI W (J\ CO 

^HOOOvDWO 



H H Oi VI H H 00 
to ivi Ui U> to On Ui 
On -P* LO vT On to Ln 



Ui h-» GN 



ON VO 00 

to O to 



(«n -P- -P" 

HvDO 



co to to 
to 4> u> 



to f- 1 to 

■P* tO f-i 
Ui CO CO 



CO en on 
vj en vO 
l-« O 4> 



OdS 

ft 03 03 

3*3 « 
rooo H» 

h{ (fit-!. 

H 3 

O 03 

3 3 

CO 03 



3 
00 



o 

it»3 

htiOO 

ro co 

3 

03 

ro 

03 



G/-N 



o 

pa 
c 
o 

o 

w 
S 
co 
tn 
co 



03 

a 



g 

03 

a 



to 

vj to Cn 

»-»4>vD 



00 

O vl VO 



I-* 

CO t- 1 vj 

ON tO ON 



-P* H-» 
vO^-vl 



4^ 

CO 00 



CO tO vl 
CO S-»-P" 



vo ro 
h-* vl co 
vl On Cn 



o 



s 

CO 

w 



23 O 
9 <3 

o t- 4 

H 



O 

pd 

P 
w 

> 

Io 
H 
w 
pa 



CO 

g 

M 
CO 
CO 

w 



CtOW 



li 
O 

s 

c_ 

3 



J^ 



g 



• 



& 



Ci 

!-• W 
CO •*> 
OM-3 
CO* 

» CO 



ha pa 

IH h- 



H 
O 

& 



vO 
vl 

to 

H 
O 

O 

ro 
o 



CO 



vO 
vl 

to 



-11- 



Beginning on January 2, 1973, the Municipal Courts in the 
criminal division were reorganized. Previously, there were five 
general courts handling misdemeanors and felony preliminary 
hearings, and a single master calendar misdemeanor jury trial 
court. The reorganization resulted in two master misdemeanor 
courts which handle all aspects of the misdemeanor cases, in- 
cluding master jury trial functions. Three courts hold prelim- 
inary hearings on a full-time basis, and a fourth holds prelim- 
inary hearings and misdemeanor jury trials. 

During the second half of fiscal year 1972-1973, the two 
master calendar misdemeanor departments handled 18,764 charges. 
Of these 43.0% or 8,081 resulted in guilty or nolo contendere 
pleas. No complaint was filed in 2,293 or 12.2% of the charges. 
A total of 6,261 charges were dismissed, but of those 3,271 
charges were dismissed because the defendant pled guilty to 
another charge. A total of 2,129 charges or 11.5% were taken 
off calendar or out of the active prosecution status due to many 
factors, such as the defendant was a juvenile, a bench warrant 
was issued for defendants failure to appear, etc. When the total 
charges of 18,764 is lowered by subtracting out the off-calendar 
items and those charges where no complaint was filed, the total 
of these charges prosecuted becomes 14,342. By adding the 
charges resulting in a guilty plea with these that were dismissed 
for a plea to another charge to the total charges successfully 
prosecuted becomes 11,352 or 79%. 

The following table illustrates the full breakdown of the 



-12- 



disposition of these misdemeanor charges: 

The Assistant District Attorneys in the Municipal Courts 
also conducted 123 court trials, 2,797 motions to revoke pro- 
bation, and 110 motions to suppress evidence hearings. 



-13- 



O 



■P* 
Co 

o 



tO 

to 

5*S 



o 

CO 



to 

to 

vO 
Co 



»-» CO 



to 



Cn - 






Cn 



o 
o 



vf> 
VO 
O 



to 



to 

vO 



00 

« 

ON 
4> 



OOGffi 90 
rt ^ 3 H« CD 
3*CD co rt O 
CD S OJ ft J 
»i ht>P/> h- 
O CD CD 
HO JS w 

05 rfd 3 
Hid) CD 
hhH«CD ►tf 
H«3 CLH 
O CD O 

H« O ^ ii CTQ 
to H rt 

Jtflo 
3 PCS O 

h°3 

rt Oj 
H-00 
O 

3 

CO 



O 

<S 

3 



CO •> H 
CCS 
co rt rt 

•coo 

CD X 

CLO) O 

ft) 3 Co 
a»a rt 

CD H- 

O H 3 

i-J H'OQ 

fjo tr 1 



03 3 

300 

o 



3 



CD 



> 
C 
rt 
o 



fi> 
< 

o 

CD 

a 
tr 4 

H« 
O 
CD 
3 
co 

CD 



c 
o 



3 3 

W M 
3S 25 
M O 

w 
•• /-s 

co 

•s 

o 

►■t 
rt 



O 
CD 
l-» 
H* 
3 
►O 
C 

3 
o 



o 

g 

rt 



U3 vjMHH-P-M Cn 
CO CONJOOMHtnhO 
O *vl Cn ON ON 4> H* *vl CO 



Cn (-• 

*sj »-* J-* tO 

t-» H J COvOOJI- J vOCnvO 



• 


to 


OJ 


cn to 


■P* 


^J 


»^J 


COvOOJ.p»tOH-»f- , 00 


5^ 


»-» 


cn 


OvOMC^O^UlO 



on Cn 



4>4>vOU3totOtoto 

vflWslOHOONC)> 



to 4> |_» oj 

vO OJCOCnCnCOfOCo4>' 

H* vj O W O -si ts3 U) Ui 



OJ fO h-i 

* w u 

j-» OJ 4> Cn CO ON CO M vO 
«vj CO 4> 4> h-» O ^J CO CO 
CO O O to en CO 0> ON CO 



M O hd 

Z H *> 

H CO O 

O H CO 

x g h 

O 03 

> M 

i-i o 

a 

O H 

M 

,0 hd 

CS 
O 



Cn 



G 
H 

§ 



S H 
H 

o as 

oa M 

CO TJ 
O 

w 



w 

CO 
H 
CO 
H 
H 

3 



h a 



> 

CO 
CO 

>. 



a 
o 



H > 



CO 

H 



CO H 
H 

S3 



CO «vj tT> Cn H» >-»»-* 

HOoo">uii- i criUivi4>vo 

vD00WJ>OMNHC»O 



h-» h-» Cn l-« 
Co Cn to «^j 4> 






to cn 



co 

VO 



4> 
Cn 



Cn 
to O 



to 

CO 
CJ> 



to 






to 

CO 



Cn 



00 
00 



to 

CTV 



4^ CO 
vO 4> 



vO 

ON 



v.n 
4> 



to 



4> 
vO 



Cn to CO «sj -vj 4> Cn 

CncoCOvO'^JOOoCN O 



rt 03 03 
3^3 H 

CDCTO H» 

H C 

OO 03 

^ CS 3 

C W 03 
00 

o 
on 

HiOO 

CD 03 

3 

CO 

CD 

CO 



o 


o 


pa 


g 


a 
o 


a 




a 


o 


CO 


<*i 


M 


*n 




tn 




a 




CO 




m 




CO 





to 

Oo»-'4> 

(-•COON 



co 
to 



CO 

COHOO 



totocn 
cn vOOO 



O 4> 
C0vo4^ 



4> 
OoONCn 









to 














Cn 
Co 


00 
Cn 
O 


to 


to 
o 
to 


\-* cn 
O ^1 

h-* vD 


CO 

00 

o 


o 


CO 
VO 

ON 


ON 

4> 
4> 


ON H 1 
Cn On Cn 
OCOON 



a o 

Q {?»(=! 

o r 1 

H 



HQO 

or 4 
> 

a 

h5 



o 

?d 

•n 

> 



o 

M 
CO 

hd 

O 
CO 

M 

M 

s 

o 



CO 

a 



o 



CO 



CO 

S 

M 
CO 
CO 

W 

a 



9° 



H 
O 



§ 

c-< 

03 

3 



vO 
-J 
OJ 

H 
o 

C_i 

§ 

(D 

OJ 
O 



vO 
-O 
OJ 



-14- 



MISDEMEANOR JURY DEPARTMENT 

The period from July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973 was marked 
by a major revision in the manner in which misdemeanor arrests 
were processed through the criminal courts. That revision 
has appreciably affected the jury trial calendar. 

Prior to January 1, 1973, misdemeanor complaints originated 
in six different Municipal Courts, and were only referred to the 
jury department after arraignment and specific demand for a 
jury trial „ As of December 31, 1972, those demands totaled 
713 cases. At that time, a "case" was designated as one in 
which a defendant was charged with one or more crimes arising 
out of a single incident. 

Commencing on January 1, 1973, two Municipal Courts assumed 
the duty of receiving all the non-traffic misdemeanor filings 
and arraignments, as well as the jury demands in traffic matters, 
pre-trial conferences, hearings on pre-trial motions, and motions 
to revoke probation. These same courts calendared and assigned 
cases to any of four courts for jury trials. The net result, 
then, has been a consolidation of virtually all the misdemeanor 
filings into two full time master calendar courts which col- 
lectively may appropriately be referred to as the "misdemeanor 
department," 

Since the implementation of the revision, the jury division 
has been staffed by eight full time attorneys, four of whom were 
assigned to the master calendar courts, the balance being 

-15- 



available for trial assignments. This required the addition of 
two attorneys to the jury trial function, and accounts for the 
increased number of trials since their acquisition. Whereas a 
total of 77 trials were heard by San Francisco juries during the 
first six months of the fiscal year, the total for the last six 
months, under the reorganization increased to 142, or by approx- 
imately 84%. The 219 trials, involving 261 defendants in a total 
of 391 charges, resulted in the following determinations: 
Convictions - 111; Acquittals - 77; Hung Juries, 31. 

The following list illustrates the general type of charge, 
the number of trials in which it was the substantive issue, and 
the approximate ratio to the total number of trials that were pre- 
sented to San Francisco juries. 



No. of Trials Approx.% , 



Driving under the influence of alcohol.. 

Breach of public peace 

Prostitution 

Theft/Fraud 

Assault/Battery 

Drug offenses 

Weapons 

Sex 



Minor vehicle 
Manslaughter. 
Miscellaneous 



58 


, 26.4 


6 


2.7 


28 


. 12.8 


47 


, 21.4 


46 


. 21.0 


3 .... 


1.3 


1 


.4 


8 


3.6 


4 


1.8 


3 


1.3 


15 


6.8 



In addition to those matters resolved through trials, the 
jury division, during the fiscal year, was responsible for clos 
ing a number of cases. Preliminarily, it should be noted that 
the definition of a "case" for accounting purposes has been re- 
vised. Since January, 1973, a "case" has been designated as 



-16- 



any violation for which a complaint has been filed. Under the 
new definition, then, it reflects a "charge", rather than a 
defendant against whom there may have been a single or multiple 
charges . 

Consequently, figures pertaining to the first half of the 
fiscal year are disproportionate to those for the last half, and 
the periods will therefore be treated separately, with the latter 
period being considered elsewhere in this report. 

Through December 31, 1972, the jury division resolved 3,113 
"cases" prior to trial • Pleas of "guilty" or "nolo contendere" 
were entered in 1,877 cases. 

In matters submitted on police reports or in which non-jury 
trials were conducted, convictions were secured in 7 of 13 cases, 
and 93 more were returned to the general criminal courts for 
settlement without a jury. A total of 24 minor traffic vio- 
lations were resolved through the defendants attendance at 
traffic school, and 39 cases were closed upon a bail forfeiture. 
In 7 instances, it was determined that the defendant was in fact 
a juvenile, and those matters were certified to the Youth Guid- 
ance Center for adjudication. Of the 3,013 cases resolved in 
the jury division during the first six months of the fiscal year, 
1,923 resulted in successful prosecution either through an ad- 
mission or finding of guilt, or by forfeiture of bail. 

At the six month period of the fiscal year, there was a 
total of 713 defendants with matters pending in the jury depart- 
ment. At the close of the year, this figure had increased to 
l y 391 representing 2,138 charges or "cases" under the revised 

definition. 

-17- 



In the Municipal Court, the District Attorney's Office 
handled a total of 70,745 charges and cases during the fiscal 
year 1972-1973. The table below illustrates the breakdown of 
the total. 

TOTAL CASES HANDLED IN MUNICIPAL COURT 



Jury Departments Final 

Disposition of Cases and 

Misdemeanor Charges 

Prosecuted in the 

General Courts 37,855 

Non- parking (Moving) 

Traffic Violations in 

Which D.A. Assisted in 

Prosecuting in Court 

(Exclusive of those 

tabulated above) 4,513 

Probation Revocation Hearings 2,797 

Preparation of 647f Complaints 

By District Attorney's Office 9,731 

Court Trials 123 

Total Misdemeanors Handled 55,019 



Motions to Suppress Evidence ... 110 

Felony Arrest Charges 15,616 

Total Cases Handled in Municipal Court . 70,745 



-18- 



ARREST AND SEARCH WARRANTS 

Recent United States and California Supreme Court deci- 
sions have made the preparation and issuance of arrest and 
search warrants an increasingly important function of the 
District Attorney's Office. 

Strict search and seizure rules have necessitated the 
Police Department's obtaining search warrants in many more 
cases. 

Considerable investigation by the Assistant District 
Attorney issuing a warrant precedes the filing of the specific 
factual declarations which are now a required part of both 
types of warrants. 

In this fiscal year, 1,465 arrest warrants and 113 search 
warrants were prepared and issued. In addition, 70 arrest 
warrants were canceled. 

MUNICIPAL COURT COMPLAINT HEARINGS 

An important function of the District Attorney's Office 
is the issuance of complaint notices (not to be confused with 
citations issued by the Police Department as an alternative to 
arrest) in cases involving neighbor disputes, barking dogs, 
disturbing the peace, and similar problems. 

A notice is mailed to the party against whom a complaint 
has been made directing his appearance in the District Attor- 
ney's Office at a specified time. At that time, a hearing is 
conducted by an Assistant District Attorney with all parties 
present. 

-19- 



Following the complaint hearing, a warrant of arrest may 
issue or, more commonly, the matter is settled in this office. 

In addition to complaints instigated by private citizens, 
many state and local agencies use the complaint citation pro- 
cess to secure compliance with the law. City and County agen- 
cies include: Tax Collector; Fire Department; Department of 
Public Health; Department of Electricity; Department of Public 
Works. State agencies include: Board of Equalization; Depart- 
ment of Industrial Relations; Department of Employment; Board 
of Medical Examiners; Department of Professional Standards; 
Department of Public Works. 

During the fiscal year, 1,761 District Attorney complaint 
citations were issued. 

OTHER FUNCTIONS 

The Municipal Court Division has voluminous communication 
with the general public which does not result in litigation of 
a criminal nature. Many persons with civil and criminal prob- 
lems are referred to this office by the Police Department and 
by other public and private agencies. Every effort is made to 
direct the inquiring citizen to the proper agency if his case 
is not within the geographical or statutory jurisdiction of 
this office. 

Needless to say, there are numerous incoming telephone 
calls; many of the problems presented require the legal opinion 
of an Assistant District Attorney. 

-20- 



RECAPITULATION-MUNICIPAL COURT RESPONSIBILITIES 

Each morning before court an Assistant District Attorney 
reviews all police reports of incidents occurring within the 
preceding 24 hears. Arrest and citation reports are separated, 
and felony arrest reports are referred to the senior Assistant 
responsible for evaluation. Misdemeanor arrests and citations 
are reviewed for accuracy of charges, and appropriate complaints 
in the case of arrests are prepared. Additional traffic and 
common drunk complaints are also prepared. 

Two Assistant District Attorneys take the misdemeanor 
complaints to their Master Calendar court for filing. In court 
the defendants are arraigned and bail is set. Thereafter, pleas 
are entered and jury is demanded or waived, and court trials 
set for hearing. The two Assistant District Attorneys assigned 
to the felony arraignment court follow a similar procedure when 
felony complaints have been prepared after conference and evalu- 
ation with the representative of the Police Department 
Inspector's Bureau. 

Two jury departments set trial dates for all matters 
referred for jury trial and another jury department hears all 
matters relating to the legality of the arrest, legality of 
the search and seizure, and applicability or constitutionality 
of the statutory violation charged. All jury departments 
conduct court trials. 



-21- 



APPELLATE DIVISION 

The Appellate Division of the office prosecutes all 
appeals arising in the Municipal Court from misdemeanor 
convictions, motions to suppress and demurrers. Such appeals 
are taken to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court 
and may be filed either by the defendant or by the People, 
in an appropriate case. The Appellate Division consists of 
one Assistant District Attorney who prepares and files 
motions, affidavits, briefs and various other forms of 
pleadings relating to such appeals. This attorney makes a 
regular appearance each Friday morning before the three- judge 
Appellate Department for oral argument on such matters. 

The attorney assigned to the appellate office also 
prepares pleadings and appears in Municipal Court in connection 
with demurrers and various pretrial motions. These hearings 
are regularly held on Monday and Wednesday mornings in 
Department #17 of the Municipal Court, sitting in criminal 
law and motion. There were approximately four hundred such 
matters during this past fiscal year. The attorney also 
prepares briefs and appears for oral argument in response to 
petitions for extraordinary writs in both the Superior Court 
and the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of California. 

Between July 1, 1972 and June 30, 1973, five appeals were 
taken by the People. One of these was later abandoned when 



-22- 



the defendant disclosed she was a juvenile. The People won 
reversals on the other four. 

During the same year period, a total of sixty-one appeals 
were filed by defendants, argued and decided. Additionally, 
there were twenty-one appeals pending at the end of the 
fiscal period. The results of the completed appeals taken 
by defendants are as follows: 

1. Affirmed 31 

2. Reversed 11 

3. Appeal dismissed upon motion of district 
attorney for failure of defendant to 
prosecute appeal with due diligence .... 24 

The majority of the reversals, six in number, were minor 
traffic offenses. The remaining five reversals included a 
question of bail forfeiture, and reversals-without-active- 
opposition arising in cases in which there was a change in 
the law pending appeal. 



-23- 



SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

The Superior Court Division of the District Attorney's 
Office has as its principal function the prosecution of all 
felony cases occurring in the City and County of San Francisco 
It must represent the People in a Master Calendar Department 
and seven criminal trial departments of the Superior Court, 
four of which are at the City Hall. The District Attorney's 
Office has twenty-two attorneys whose regular assignment is 
the trial of criminal cases in the Superior Court. 

Superior Court criminal cases first appear for arraign- 
ment in the Master Calendar Department. A plea to the charge 
or charges is entered by the accused. Preliminary motions are 
normally made in this court to: (1) set aside the information 
or indictment; (2) suppress evidence; (3) sever ca^es for 
trial; (4) have an accused mentally examined; and (5) con- 
solidate cases for trial. In addition to the matters just 
mentioned, all cases are assigned for trial from the Master 
Calendar Department to the seven criminal trial courts. 

During the fiscal year 1972-73 the Master Calendar 
Division began with 383 cases awaiting trial involving 483 
defendants. As a result of excellent trial preparation and 
calendar management, plea negotiations and pleas of guilty, 
these figures were reduced by July, 1973, to 168 cases await- 
ing trial involving 217 individual defendants. 



-24- 



Other proceedings which also take place in the Master 
Calendar Court are: hearings on certifications from Muni- 
cipal Court for the determination of present sanity of an 
accused; hearings on petitions for writs of habeas corpus 
and writs of mandate; hearings on petitions for commitment 
of defendants as mentally disordered sex offenders; hearings 
on petitions to determine whether or not a defendant is 
addicted to the use of narcotics; and hearings on motions 
to revoke or modify probation. All members of the District 
Attorney's staff in the Superior Court Division participate 
in these functions. 

Three Assistant District Attorneys are regularly assigned 
to the Master Calendar Department. Their duties embrace the 
evaluation of cases by review of the entire file; the negotiation 
of guilty-plea dispositions; preparation and presentation of the 
various pretrial motions; trial assignments to the seven trial 
courts; and assignments regarding motions and the other proceed- 
ings described above. 

In addition to the preparation and trial of jury cases, the 
attorneys of the Superior Court Division evaluate, prepare 
written briefs and memoranda in support of, and present the 
People's position in these above mentioned proceedings. With 
the increasing complexity of the criminal law produced by new 
legislation and court decisions, more research and preparation 
are required of trial attorneys. 

During the fiscal year July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973, 



-25- 



there were 2,156 case filings in the Superior Court Division 
consisting of informations filed by the District Attorney and 
indictments returned by the Grand Jury, involving a total of 
2,547 defendants. This amounts to approximately 180 cases 
filed per month. There were 2,837 individual defendants who 
appeared on 2,482 matters which included, in addition to the 
informations and indictments mentioned above, all other Superior 
Court matters such as petitions for rehabilitation and pardon, 
commitments for narcotic offenders and other similar matters. 
The disparity occurring between the number of cases filed and 
the number of defendants charged is explained by the fact that 
many case filings include more than one defendant. Of the 
cases reaching final disposition 2,372 defendants entered pleas 
of guilty. There were 226 jury trials resulting in 178 verdicts 
of conviction; 28 verdicts of acquittal; and 20 jury disagree- 
ments. Jury disagreements nearly always result in conviction 
on retrial of the case or by pleas of guilty. Thus, convictions 
occurred in 87% by jury verdicts of guilty or pleas of guilty 
before retrial, while acquittals occurred in 137o of the trials. 

For the first half of the year 1973 statistics of the 
Superior Court Division show the following: 

On January 1st there were 190 felony cases awaiting trial 
involving 251 individual defendants. By the end of June the 
number of cases had been reduced to 168 with only 217 individ- 
ual defendants. 

The filings of new cases averaged 193 a month for the 



-26- 



first six months of 1973. The six months break down as follows: 



January 


161 cases 


207 defendants 


February 


176 " 


214 " 


March 


199 " 


258 " 


April 


200 " 


268 " 


May 


234 


293 " 


June 


186 


214 



Totals 1,156 cases 1,454 defendants 
During this six month period 1,127 separate cases were 
disposed of: 105 by felony jury trials, 1,131 individual 
guilty pleas (some cases involving more than one defendant) 
and by other dispositions short of trial. There were 88 
guilty verdicts, 9 acquittals and 8 disagreements. Most of 
the latter resulted in subsequent conviction by guilty plea 
or retrial. 



-27- 



OBSCENITY PROSECUTIONS 

During the past fiscal year the District Attorney's 
office continued its efforts to control the distribution 
and exhibition of obscene material in theaters, bars and 
other public places. There were numerous arrests involving 
some twenty-seven offenders. Eleven of these individuals 
were convicted of obscenity offenses; the charges against 
the remaining sixteen individuals were subsequently dis- 
missed following jury verdicts or on the motion of the 
court after hearing. 

Two theater operators were brought to a jury trial for 
the exhibition of obscene motion pictures. One trial resulted 
in a hung jury in favor of conviction; in the other, the 
defendants were acquitted. The outcome of both trials reflect 
the attempt of exhibitors to promote full length motion pictures 
containing sexual conduct with a story line to add an alleged 
social importance to the film. 

In addition to the routine appellate work which accompanies 
the prosecution of pending cases, two convictions from previous 
years, 1967 and 1970, continue to be litigated in the appellate 
courts . 

The most serious obstacle for successful obscenity prose- 
cution in San Francisco, as well as other Bar Area counties, 
is the requirement of expert testimony on each and every element 
of the definition of obscenity. Due to financial limitations, 



-28- 



this office has been unable to follow the pattern of the 
Federal prosecutors and a limited number of county prose- 
cutors and invite knowledgeable experts from the East Coast 
and other distant locations to testify in jury trial prose- 
cutions. In addition, the reorganization of personnel in 
the San Francisco Police Department resulted in the loss of 
two witnesses whose expertise had been useful in previous 
cases. 

The effect of the recent decision of the United States 
Supreme Court on the subject of obscenity is not yet settled. 
This office has met with the Office of the California Attorney 
General and is studying the decision and applicable statutes 
to insure effective enforcement in this field of the criminal 
law. 



-29- 



VICE CONTROL 

In cooperation with the Bureau of Special Services of 
the San Francisco Police Department, those efforts to expedite 
the prosecution of cases involving violations of the laws re- 
lating to pimping and prostitution which were begun in fiscal 
1971 were continued and intensified. Specifically, greater 
emphasis was placed on the following: 

1. Prosecution of known and suspected pimps and panderers; 

2. Identification of premises used for the purpose of 
prostitution and enforcement of the Red Light Abatement Act 
with reference to those premises; 

3. Use of improved techniques to minimize recidivism among 
convicted prostitutes. 

Prosecution of Known and Suspected Pimps - In co- 
operation with the San Francisco Police Department, all cases 
involving suspected or known pimps or panderers were routed 
through the office of a single Assistant District Attorney 
assigned to Vice Control. This procedure resulted in the 
speedier disposition of cases involving such persons than had 
previously been experienced when such cases were assigned to 
various prosecutors on a rotation basis. In fiscal 1972-1973, 
sixty- five (65) known or suspected pimps were convicted in 
the Superior Court, twenty- two (22) of whom were sentenced 
to the State Penitentiary. The great majority of the balance 
of those convicted received grants of probation with the 



-30- 



condition that they serve a period of confinement in the 
County Jail. One case ended in acquittal after jury trial 
and one case was dismissed because the witness for the prose- 
cution was unavailable. At the time of this writing there 
are four (4) cases awaiting Superior Court trial, five (5) 
awaiting preliminary hearing, and there are warrants outstand- 
ing against eight (8) persons who have fled the jurisdiction. 
The total number of persons convicted since the inception of 
the vice control program is one hundred ten (110). 

Use of the Red Light Abatement Act - Procedures which 
were begun in 1971 which were developed to insure maximum 
utilization of the Red Light Abatement Act were continued and 
accelerated in fiscal 1972-1973. 
In fiscal 1972-1973: 

(a) Formal lawsuits were in progress and preliminary 
injunctions were in effect with reference to twenty (20) 
different parcels of property. 

(b) Two hundred twenty-five (225) property owners had 
instituted security procedures recommended by the Vice Control 
unit and had, thereby, voluntarily abated the nuisance. 

(c) Investigations were pending with regard to two hundred 
fifty (250) parcels of property which showed minimal pros- 
titution activity, 

Use of Improved Techniques - The specialized and in- 
tensified training of police officers and prosecutors in the 
area of vice control continued through fiscal 1972-1973. 



-31- 



Record keeping procedures were streamlined to insure maximum 
effectiveness derived from reduced manpower expenditures. 
Greater use of computer equipment and the initiation of 
extensive cross-referencing techniques contributed to this 
economizing. More efficient methods of disseminating in- 
formation were begun and retrieval of information became 
easier due to the use of standardized input systems. The 
marked increase in the number of requests for information 
received from other Bay Area counties during fiscal 1972-1973 
attest to the effectiveness of the programs developed here. 



-32- 



BUSINESS INVESTIGATION - COMSUMER PROTECTION SECTION 

This Section formerly changed its title on May 1, 1973 
to the Business Investigation - Consumer Protection Section. 
Prior to that time, it only dealt with consumer problems on 
a part-time basis. Because of this change, each function will 
be discussed separately. 

BUSINESS INVESTIGATION 

During the past fiscal year this section investigated 
and prosecuted the following types of offenses: Embezzlements, 
Thefts by False Pretenses, Corporation Security Violations, 
Forgeries, and other related criminal activities. 

Investigations are initiated by complaints from citizens 
and from federal, state and local agencies. The first step in 
investigation is an interview with the complainant or with an 
investigator from a governmental agency. This is followed by 
securing of further evidence, if needed, and interviews with 
all persons who may be witnesses. A warrant is issued if it 
is determined there are sufficient grounds for a criminal charge 

In some cases, however, a hearing is held at the Office 
of the District Attorney, at which time all interested parties 
are invited to appear. 

If no further investigation is required, a warrant may 
issue or the matter may be dismissed, depending upon the 
intricacies of the case. 



-33- 



Following arrest for a felony, the defendant is held to 
answer for trial either through a preliminary hearing or by 
indictment. 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

During the past fiscal year, consumer protection enforce- 
ment has steadily grown. 525 new complaints were received 
which was an increase over the past years. During the same 
period 410 matters were resolved which resulted in consumers 
receiving goods, services or money valued at approximately 
$20,000. Investigation of these matters are initiated by 
complaint from citizens and various private and governmental 
agencies. After their receipt, each business or individual 
complained about is contacted either in person or by letter 
in an attempt to resolve the matter. In some cases, a hearing 
may be held at the Office of the District Attorney at which 
time all interested parties are invited to appear. 

If the matter cannot be resolved in the above manner, 
then, after further investigation, an action may be instituted 
or the matter dismissed depending upon the facts of each case. 
In instituting an action, the District Attorney's office may 
file a criminal or civil action, again depending upon the facts 
developed during the investigation. Criminal prosecution can 
result in the guilty party being sent to jail, fined, or both. 
In addition, the Court may order restitution to the victims. 
Civil actions involve the bringing of injunctive proceedings. 



-34- 



These actions are initiated by the filing of a civil complaint 
and the obtaining of a temporary restraining order or a pre- 
liminary injunction and ultimately a permanent injunction. 
These proceedings may take from a few weeks to many years 
before they are completed. They result not only in stopping 
illegal practices but also in obtaining $2,500 penalty for 
each violation. 

During the past year, three new injunctive actions were 
initiated. One of these was disposed of during the year in 
which $5,000 was recovered for the City and County of San 
Francisco. Presently, there are six civil injunctive actions 
awaiting trial. 



■35- 



GRAND JURY 

One important function of the District Attorney is to act 
as legal advisor to the Grand Jury in all criminal matters. 
He is responsible for the presentation of evidence in felony 
cases where an indictment is sought. Witnesses are called 
and cases are presented each Monday evening. When indictments 
are voted they are formally presented to the Presiding Judge 
of the Superior Court on the following Thursday morning. 

During the fiscal year (1972-1973), 294 witnesses were 
called to testify before the Grand Jury. A total of 58 in- 
dictments were returned involving 99 defendants, with a total 
of 220 charges. 

A review of the Calendar year 1972, indicates the following 

Total No. of Indictments filed in 1972 65 

Total No. of Defendants Indicted in 1972 101 

No. of Defendants with Final Disposition 98 

Guilty 84 

Not Guilty 2 

Dismissed by District Attorney (plea to 
other felony, etc.). 7 

Dismissed by Judge (995 P.C.) 3 

Juvenile Court ... 2 

No. of Defendants Pending Trial (Trial delayed 

by Appellate Court) 1 

Fugitives 2 

From the above figures it is apparent that of the 86 



-36- 



defendants whose cases were finally disposed of by guilty 
pleas or trial, 97.87o were convicted. 

In March of this year the Grand Jury met specially on 
seven occasions to investigate the cause of two riots which 
occurred in the County Jail. The District Attorney presented 
a total of thirty-six witnesses who gave relevant testimony. 
Following these hearings the Grand Jury submitted a report 
disclosing its conclusions and recommendations to the Board 
of Supervisors. 

In September, 1972, at the request of the 1972 Grand 
Jury, we began an investigation into alleged criminal 
violations in the administration of an operating agency of 
the San Francisco Model Cities Agency known as Southeast 
Community Development Corporation. An Assistant District 
Attorney, with the assistance of two San Francisco Police 
Inspectors, examined all relevant documents , w itnesses , and 
the ramifications. 

Due to the complex nature of the investigation it was 
impossible to file a report until April, 1973. This 
comprehensive report was filed with the Foreman of the 1973 
Grand Jury. The report and relevant witnesses were examined 
by members of the 1973 Grand Jury and thereafter their 
conclusions and recommendations relating to this matter were 
presented to the Mayor and to the Board of Supervisors. 



BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
Criminal Division 

The Criminal Division of the investigative staff of the 
San Francisco District Attorney's office is currently composed 
of thirteen Investigators. They are presently assigned in the 
following manner: three are working with the Business 
Investigation/Consumer Protection Division; four are assigned 
to the Aid to Families With Dependent Children Division; one 
is assigned to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support 
Division; and the five remaining Investigators are assigned 
to the trial deputies. 

The function of the investigative staff is the evaluation 
of complaints which are initiated by private citizens, as well as 
law enforcement agencies at all levels of government, including 
federal, state and local agencies. 

The investigations conducted by this staff are designed 
to ascertain all of the pertinent facts with reference to any 
given situation. This requires the location and interview of all 
percipient witnesses whose testimony would be needed in order to 
reconstruct in formal court hearings the events which are being 
litigated. Based on the information obtained, the Deputy District 
Attorney can now determine whether or not to issue an arrest 
warrant. Once a person is in custody, it is the Investigator's 
responsibility to secure declarations and additional witnesses, 
serve subpoenas, uncover information which may be needed to rebut 
the assertions of defense witnesses, and testify in Court, as 

-38- 



necessary. The Individual Investigator is also responsible for 
securing physical evidence at the scene of the crime, which duty 
encompasses the charting and photographing of said locations . 

In addition to the investigation of cases (for trial) , 
the Investigators are required to research and report on Demands 
For Speedy Trials, under Section 1381 of the Penal Code, and to 
research and report on requests for Certificates of Rehabilitation 
and Pardon under Section 4852.01 of the Penal Code. 

Investigations 1,868 

Reciprocals 479 

Demands For Trial 175 

Subpoenas served 182 

Rehabilitation & Pardons . . 16 



-39- 



Psychiatric Division 

The primary functions of the Psychiatric Division are as 
follows: 

(1) To represent the City and County of San Francisco 
as designated in Section 5114 of the Welfare and Institutions 
Code. 

(2) Investigation of alleged mentally disordered and 
intemperate persons, as well as those addicted to narcotics 
and habit forming drugs ; when appropriate taking action under 
the Penal or Welfare and Institutions Codes. 

(3) To interview and advise persons requesting informa- 
tion on psychiatric facilities and legal procedures relating 

to the problems of mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction 

Section 5114 of the California Welfare and Institutions 
Code specifically assigns the responsibility of presenting 
the People's case at any judicial proceeding under that code 
to the District Attorney. A member of the legal staff has 
been assigned to these duties which include Jury Trials demanded 
by the alleged mentally ill. One of these trials was held during 
the past fiscal year, the patient being hospitalized as the 
result. 

Court appearance by the District Attorney at Writs of 
Habeas Corpus hearing demanded by the alleged mentally ill 
is also mandatory under Section 5114. During the fiscal year 
1972-1973, twenty-four hearings were held on Writs of Habeas 
Corpus, two were granted, twenty-two denied. 



-40- 



Complaints concerning mental illness or deficiency, 
alcoholism and drug and narcotic addiction are investigated 
by a psychologist employed by this office and regularly 
assigned to all such cases. Whenever advisable a member of 
the legal staff is also assigned. Where reasonable and 
probable cause exists and where no relatives or other inter- 
ested parties are located or willing to assume responsibility 
this office takes appropriate action under either the Penal 
or Welfare and Institutions Code. 

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, the 
Psychopathic Division was directly concerned with 243 invest- 
igations . 

Mental Illness 183 

Narcotics & Drugs 34 

Intemperance 26 

243 

In addition, the Psychopathic Division conducted 

numerous investigations during the fiscal year which resulted 

in the locating of relatives or other interested persons who 

were willing and able to assume responsibility for the patient 

and arrange private hospitalization or psychiatric care without 

the necessity of court proceedings. Many other complaints were 

found, upon investigation, to be without merit, and legal action 

was unnecessary. 



-41- 



Aid to Famili es with Dep endent Childr en Division 

Pursuant to Section 11475 of the Welfare and Institutions 

Code, the Department of Social Services and the Youth Guidance 

Center refer new cases concerning dependent children to the 

District Attorney for investigation. 

This office does not determine the eligibility of 

applicants for aid; such determination is made exclusively by 

the Department of Social Services. The principal functions 

of the AFDC investigators are: 

1. Finding absent parents to enforce legal 
support obligations. 

2. Instituting proper criminal action against 
those who have fraudulently received aid. 

During the fiscal year 1972 - 1973: 

1,662 New AFDC cases referred. 
176 Inactive cases reopened. 
2,653 Active cases held over from last year. 
4,491 Total active case load. 
2,099 Cases closed. 
"2,392 Active cases as of July 1, 1973. 

Approximately 1,515 interviews were held regarding 

the above cases . 

The following were the reasons for closing 2,099 cases: 

Insufficient information to pursue. 

The impossibility of establishing paternity. 

Uniform Reciprocal Support Action by this 
office, whereby an order was obtained for 
support from a responsible parent residing 
outside of California. 

Convictions under Section 270 of the Penal 
Code, resulting in sentences of probation 
or incarceration. 



-42- 



The complainant left this jurisdiction. 

The defendant was located by this office and 
a support agreement reached for payment 
either to the recipient or the Department of 
Social Services. 

The Adult Probation Department took over 
supervision of the absent parent on voluntary 
probation (Section 580(d) of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code) or per Section 4702 of the 
Civil Code. 135 cases were referred under 
these two sections . 

It is estimated that during 1973 the AFDC investigators 
effected savings to the taxpayers in the amount of $190,716. 

Paternity 

The increase in illegitimacy is a contributing factor to 

the increase of welfare disbursements. Establishing paternity 

of these children is difficult, but AFDC investigators endeavor 

to have the natural fathers voluntarily acknowledge paternity 

through written statements, and then arrange support payments 

commensurate with the individual's income. During this 

fiscal year, 91 such statements were obtained by the AFDC 

investigators. Thirty-eight additional cases were referred 

for review for possible civil paternity action. 

Investigations for 
Other Jurisdictions 

Another duty of the AFDC investigators is locating and 

interviewing absent parents, verifying wages, securing 

voluntary paternity acknowledgments and other data for other 

jurisdictions. Approximately 298 such requests were received 

and processed during this year. 



-43- 



Welfare F raud 

Fraud is the general term applied to those cases in which 

there are reasonable grounds to believe that a welfare 

recipient has received aid as the result of wilfully and 

knowingly making false statements or failing to disclose a 

material fact in order to obtain such aid. 

These cases are initially detected and investigated 

by the AFDC investigators of this office or are referred to us 

for additional investigation and analysis by the Department of 

Sociel Services. Depending on the circumstances under which 

the fraud was perpetrated, criminal charges have been filed 

for violations of Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 13800 

and 114S3 (Misrepresentation), and Penal Code Section 487 

(Grand Theft) . 

The total number of warrants issued, arrests made, 

convictions secured and restitution obtained for fiscal year 

1972 - 1973 is indicated by the following statistics: 

Case l oad p enoJ n g from la s t filial y ear 

Cases pending further investigation 12 

Arrests - pending court disposition 10 

Unserved warrants 64 

1972 - 1973 Activity 

Suspected fraud cases newly referred 213 

No criminal charges filed by the District 
Attorney due to insufficient evidence, 
statutes, or where civil money judgment 
had been entered in favor of San Francisco 
County 98 



-44- 



Restitution in the amount of $15,354.00 
collected as a result of citation hearings. 

Warrants issued 130 

Arrests 82 

Warrants cancelled 10 

Convictions 66 

Restitution ordered by court $126,283.71 

Cases pending further investigation 16 

Arrests - pending in court 12 

Unserved warrants 106 



-45- 



BUREAU OF FAMILY RELATIONS 

This Bureau investigates all complaints of a purported 
criminal nature arising between members of a family or 
putative family. 

Four staff members investigate these complaints, which 
include: failure to provide for a minor child; failure to 
provide for an indigent wife; assault; battery; wife beating; 
disturbing the peace; threats to do bodily harm; malicious 
mischief; mental illness; alcoholism; narcotic addiction; 
establishment of paternity for a child of an unwed mother; 
denial of visiting rights to a parent where custody of his 
child is under court order; and various other types of 
domestic difficulties. 

All alternative actions to resolution of these domestic 
complaints are explored prior to the issuance of any arrest 
warrant. District Attorney citation notices are issued and 
informal hearings are conducted to determine the facts 
regarding the alleged crime. The limits of the law are 
defined to both the complainant and defendant. The necessity 
for issuance of an arrest warrant is eliminated in most cases 
to the satisfaction of all concerned persons; thus settling 
the dispute and saving court costs by not adding to crowded 
court calendars. 



-46. 



When there is no infraction of the California Penal 
Code, Bureau staff often will refer persons to appropriate 
community agencies offering counseling or other services to 
those needing help. For example, cases of mental illness or 
alcoholism are referred for investigation to San Francisco 
General Hospital, Psychopathic Division. 

This Bureau invokes Section 270 of the California Penal 
Code (failure to provide for minor children, both legitimate 
and illegitimate) . Every effort is made to secure voluntary 
contributions for support. Although 895 complaints of non- 
support were made, only 31 warrants for arrest were issued. 
There were 46 voluntary referrals made to the Adult Probation 
Department under Section 580 (d) of the California Welfare 
and Institutions Code. The members of the staff were, in 
most cases, able to secure the cooperation of the absent 
parent as a result of investigation and the citation hearing 
process. 

A great deal of time and effort is exerted in searching 
for defendants who do not reside in our jurisdiction or in 
California. Our Bureau has many sources of information 
besides District Attorney offices of other jurisdictions. 
There is a voluminous correspondence with agencies such as 
the following: California Bureau of Criminal Identification 
and Investigation, California Department of Human Resources 
Development, Armed Forces of the United States, unions and 
employers. 



-47- 



The Bureau of Family Relations makes direct referrals 
to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Division in 
the District Attorney's Office. Approximately 36 referrals 
were made for URSSA processing. Previously non-welfare 
mothers were referred for this civil remedy to an attorney of 
their choice, which in many cases, was costly and time 
consuming. 

During the year, 1,496 complaint notices were mailed; 
1,017 hearings were held; and 1,481 referrals were made. 
Approximately 5,000 telephone inquiries regarding case 
status, specific complaints, and general information were 
handled by this Bureau. 

This year Bureau staff continued a program for more 
complete classification of complaints. Since April 1973 we 
have limited the Domestic Difficulty classification to family 
problems caused primarily by non-criminal behavior. There 
were 359 complaints of drinking associated with alleged 
criminal activity and 123 complaints of possible mental 
illness associated with alleged criminal activity. Because 
of the noticeable increase of complaints about misuse or 
abuse of narcotics within a family setting, the Bureau began 
listing Narcotics as a separate classification since April, 
1973. During this latest three-month period there were 26 
complaints in which abusive use of narcotics was alleged to 
be associated with other purported criminal activity. Bureau 
staff makes referrals to agencies offering assistance with 



-48- 



the problem of drug abuse. In many instances complaints are 
brought to the attention of the police Narcotics Detail when 
information might be helpful for identifying the source of 
illegal trafficking in drugs. 

In April, 1973, the Bureau staff also began to record 
the number of complaint interviews held. During the last 
three-month period our staff held 812 such interviews. 

There has been much turnover of investigative staff this 
past year. However, our investigators are currently being 
certified to their positions on a permanent basis, and it is 
hoped this will help to stabilize the Bureau's investigative 
staff for the coming years. 

The Bureau of Family Relations processed the following 
complaints during the fiscal year: 

CLASSIFICATION CASES 

242 Penal Code (Battery) 1.228 

270 Penal Code (Non- Support of Minor Children) 895 

270 (a) Penal Code (Non-Support of Indigent Wife) 27 

273 (d) Penal Code (Felony Wife Beating) 27 

279 Penal Code (Denial of Visiting Rights) 123 

415 Penal Code (Disturbing the Peace) 580 

594 Penal Code (Malicious Mischief) 139 

653 (m) (Annoying Telephone Communications) 288 

Domestic Difficulties 1,250 

Drinking 359 

Narcotics (3 month period) 26 



-49- 



CLASSIFICATION CASES 

Mental Illness 123 

Threats 612 

Unwed mothers (establishment of paternity) 65 

Miscellaneous 367 



TOTAL: 6,109 



-50- 



UNIFORM RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT DIVISION 



This division, as its primary function, conducts civil 

actions under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support 

Act to secure support for local children from fathers who 

live in another state or county, and to secure child support 

payments from residents of San Francisco whose dependents 

reside in other jurisdictions. As regards this function, 

the activities of the fiscal year are summarized as follows: 

CASES INITIATED FOR LOCAL CHILDREN 76 

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SUCH CASES PER MONTH .... 6.33 

CASES INITIATED FOR CHILDREN OR OTHER 

JURISDICTIONS 241 

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SUCH CASES PER MONTH .... 20.08 

TOTAL RECIPROCAL SUPPORT CASES PROCESSED ... 317 

AVERAGE OF NEW RECIPROCAL SUPPORT CASES 

PER MONTH 26.41 

CONTEMPT CITATIONS INITIATED FOR PAYMENT 

DELINQUENCIES 72 

CHANGES OF VENUE FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO 

OTHER JURISDICTIONS 91 

CHANGES OF VENUE TO SAN FRANCISCO FROM 

OTHER JURISDICTIONS 13 

In a substantial number of reciprocal support cases the 

defendant either moves away from San Francisco or proves to 

have so little income that the court will not issue a support 



-51- 



order. Despite these factors, many support orders were 

secured. The results in that regard can be summarized as 

follows : 

SUPPORT ORDERS 146 

SUPPORT ORDER MODIFICATIONS 23 

INTERIM ORDERS RE CONTEMPT 75 

WAGE ASSIGNMENTS 31 

WARRANTS OF ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT 52 

TOTAL ORDERS SECURED FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS 327 

SUPPORT ORDERS OBTAINED BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS 

FOR LOCAL CHILDREN AT OUR REQUEST 64 

The division also conducts civil contempt proceedings 

under Section 4702 of the Civil Code against persons who, 

by provision in divorce decrees, are under a court order to 

pay child support through the San Francisco Adult Probation 

Department and have failed to do so. The statistics regarding 

cases of this type referred to the division by the Adult 

Probation Department are as follows: 

NUMBER OF NEW CASES REFERRED 71 

SUPPORT ORDER MODIFICATIONS 39 

WAGE ASSIGNMENTS 22 

COMPLIANCE SECURED WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER .... 4 

MOTHER OF THE CHILDREN WITHDREW REQUEST 

THAT THE ORDER BE ENFORCED 9 

DEFENDANT NOT YET SERVED WITH PROCESS 4 

REFERRAL REJECTED FOR PROCEDURAL DEFECTS .... 3 

CASE TRANSFERRED TO COUNTY IN WHICH 

THE CHILDREN NOW RESIDE 2 



-52- 



The division also initiates and prosecutes civil 
paternity actions against the alleged fathers of San Francisco 
children who are dependent on welfare, when paternity has 
been denied. Such prosecutions were hampered during the 
fiscal year by a court decision which determined that the 
mother of an illegitimate child is entitled to full welfare 
support, if otherwise qualified, even though she refuses to 
identify the father of the child or to assist in any other 
way in securing a contribution from him toward the cost to the 
community of supporting his child. As a result, only twenty- 
eight paternity cases could be initiated during the fiscal 
year, and seven of these could not be continued because of 
lack of cooperation by the mothers. Furthermore, fourteen 
cases which had been initiated prior to July 1, 1972, were 
necessarily discontinued during the fiscal year because of 
the refusal of the mothers to cooperate further. 

Nevertheless, paternity was established and child support 
orders were secured in fifteen paternity cases, calling for 
payments to San Francisco by fathers of illegitimate children 
in the amount of $21,486.96 per year. 

Finally, the division secures civil judgments against 
insurance companies as to bail bonds which were issued by 
the companies to guarantee the appearance in court of criminal 
defendants and subsequently were declared forfeited by the 
Superior Court when the defendants failed to appear. During 
the fiscal year, the Superior Court issued collection orders 



-53- 



as to forty- two bail bonds which had previously been declared 
forfeited. The division dealt with these collection orders 
as follows: 

SUMMARY JUDGMENTS SECURED 40 

PAID BEFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING ON JUNE 30, 1973 . . . 1 

TOTAL 42 

One summary judgment secured during the fiscal year is 

presently on appeal, while another was set aside on motion 

presented to the court. Fifty-two judgments totalling 

$90,700.00 were collected during the year. Interest in the 

amount of $1,671.06 was also collected. Collections ordered 

prior to July 1, 1973, which remained uncollected on that 

date could be summarized as follows: 

COLLECTION PRESENTLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE THE 

COLLECTION ORDER HAS BEEN APPEALED $97,875 

COLLECTION PRESENTLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE THE 

BONDING COMPANY IS IN LIQUIDATION 43,125 

COLLECTIONS IN PROCESS AT END OF FISCAL YEAR . . 3,100 
TOTAL UNCOLLECTED $144,100 



-54- 



ANHOAL REPORT TO MAYOR 



DOCUMENTS 

SEP 2 5 1974 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Submitted by 



JOHN JAY FERDON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 



July 1, 1973 - June 30, 1974 



CONTENTS 

MUNICIPAL COURT DIVISION 1 

FELONY CASES - MUNICIPAL COURT .... 7 

APPELLATE DIVISION 10 

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 11 

JUVENILE DIVISION 13 

VICE CONTROL 14 

BUSINESS INVESTIGATION - 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 15 

GRAND JURY 17 

BUREAU OF FAMILY RELATIONS 18 

UNIFORM RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT 

OF SUPPORT DIVISION 20 

EXTRADITIONS 22 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 23 

PSYCHIATRIC DIVISION 24 



Municipal Court Division 

Introduction 

The Municipal Court Division initiates all felony 
prosecutions. This includes processing felony cases in the 
Municipal Court, presentation of motions to revoke probation^ 
prosecution of all misdemeanor cases, assisting the Police 
Department in the preparation of arrest and search warrants, 
analyzing and approving defendants 1 motions for diversion 
from the criminal process, and holding complaint hearings 
prior to, or in lieu of, prosecution. 

Initiating Felony Prosecutions 

Felony prosecutions in the Municipal Court are initiated 
either by issuance of an arrest warrant or by the filing of 
complaints following an evaluation of felony arrests made 
without a warrant. 

These "no warrant" felony arrests are made by police 
officers after they observe acts or obtain information which 
provide them with reasonable and probable cause to believe 
that a felony has been committed. 

After a "no warrant" arrest is made, the case is assigned 
to a detail of the Inspectors Bureau of the Police Department 
for investigation. The case is then evaluated in a conference 
by a representative of the Inspectors Bureau and an experienced 
Assistant District Attorney. 

In order to properly evaluate and to insure a just and 
proper disposition of these cases, the reviewing Assistant 
District Attorney must possess a thorough knowledge of 
criminal and constitutional law. Because of the continuing 
changes in criminal law and procedure, it is imperative that 
all prosecuting attorneys remain abreast of these developments. 

After the evaluation of the "no warrant" felony arrest, 
a decision is made to initiate a felony or misdemeanor prose- 
cution or to discharge the arrested person. This decision must 
be made within two court days following the arrest. During 
the 1973-1974 fiscal year, the Municipal Court Division handled 
14,942 "no warrant" felony arrest charges. This was a decrease 
of 774 charges from the 15,616 charges filed during the 
1972-1973 fiscal year. 

A total of 9,472 charges, 63% of all "no warrant" felony 
arrests, resulted in criminal prosecutions. Of these, 55% 
were felony and 13% were misdemeanor prosecutions . 



Prosecutions in the remaining 5,470 charges, 37% of all the 
cases, were not filed because of insufficient evidence 
resulting from constitutional or factual limitations* The 
most common constitutional limitation was the exclusionary 
rule of evidence. Frequently encountered also was the 
inability of victims of crimes to identify arrested persons 
or property alleged to have been stolen. Additionally, many 
victims v decline to prosecute family members or friends after 
an arrest has been made. In some cases further investigation 
exonerated the arrested person. In other situations another 
jurisdiction prosecuted the defendant and the local charges 
were dismissed when further prosecution would be meaningless. 

In cases where the accused was found to be under 18 years 
he was certified to the juvenile court for delinquency deter- 
mination. In other cases charges were dismissed in order to 
permit prosecution on another pending charge or because the 
defendant was already serving a prison term from another juris- 
diction. Also when evidence is insufficient charges were 
dropped to establish the statutory elements of the crime, i.e., 
where laboratory analysis reveals the suspected contraband 
is not a prohibited substance. Lastly, cases may be dismissed 
pending further necessary investigation by the police depart- 
ment. These cases are reopened by issuance of an arrest 
warrant when the supplemental investigation is completed by 
the inspector assigned to the case. 

During this fiscal year, 1,593 District Attorney complaint 
citations were issued. These are informal hearings conducted 
by an Assistant District Attorney and designed to obtain enforce- 
ment of various laws without the necessity of formal court 
proceedings. Emphasis is placed upon avoiding issuance of a 
warrant of arrest where voluntary compliance by the person 
against whom the complaint has been made fully satisfies the 
interest of justice. A shortage of staff attorneys has forced 
curtailment of this important service. 



-2- 



. 









Misdemeanor Jury Department 

During the fiscal year 1973-1974, two municipal court 
departments processed all the non-traffic misdemeanor filings 
and arraignments, jury demands in traffic cases, pretrial 
conferences, pretrial motions, and motions to revoke proba- 
tion. These same courts calendared and assigned cases to 
six other departments for jury trials. 

The jury department is staffed by 12 lawyers, 4 of whom 
are assigned to the master calendar courts, the balance being 
available for trial assignments. A total of 267 cases 
proceeded to jury trial. These involved 300 defendants 
prosecuted on a total of 416 charges. 205 cases resulted in 
convictions; 160 in acquittals; and in 55 cases the jury 
disagreed. 

The following list illustrates the general categories 
of charges, the number of trials in which it was the substan- 
tive issue, and the approximate ratio to the total number 
of trials presented during the fiscal year. 

N umber of 
" Trials Approx. % 

Driving/ Influence of alcohol 71 26 

Breach of public peace 2 1 

Prostitution 45 16 

Theft/Fraud 54 20 

Assault/Battery ,53 20 

Drug Offenses 9 3 

Weapons 11 4 

Sex 6 2 

Vehicle 10 3 

Manslaughter 2 1 

Miscellaneous 5 1 

In addition to those matters resolved by trials, the 
jury departments were responsible for closing a number of 
cases. 

At the close of the fiscal year, 1,129 charges were 
pending in the misdemeanor departments. 

In the Municipal Court, the District Attorney's Office 
handled a total of 75,765 charges (felony and misdemeanor) 
during the fiscal year. The following table illustrates 
the breakdown of the total: 



-3- 



.• 



Total Charges Handled in Municipal Court 

Final Disposition of Charges Prosecuted in the 

Municipal Courts (General and Jury Departments . . • . 23,211 

Non-Parking (Moving) Traffic Violations in which 

District Attorney Assisted in Prosecuting in 

Court (Exclusive of Those Tabulated Above) 19,356 

Probation Revocation Hearings 1,030 

Preparation of Department #16 Complaints (Traffic) 

by District Attorney's Office 2,008 

Preparation of 647 f Penal Code (Drunk) Complaints 

by District Attorney's Office 13,991 

Court Trials 589 

TOTAL MISDEMEANOR CHARGES HANDLED. . . 60,185 

Motions to Suppress Evidence 638 

Felony Arrest Charges 14,942 

TOTAL CHARGES HANDLED IN KUNICIPAL COURT. . . . 75,765 

Misdemeanor Cases 

During the 1973-1974 fiscal year, the municipal court 
departments which were assigned to hear criminal and traffic 
matters handled 57,717 charges based on violations of such 
laws, exclusive of parking violations. The following charts and 
text illustrate the categories and dispositions of these charges 
in the Municipal Court. 

The general and jury departments of the Municipal Court 
handled 23,211 misdemeanor charges of which 9,223 charges 
resulted in conviction. There were 8,504 charges dismissed 
because the defendant pled guilty or was found guilty of 
another misdemeanor offense . Other dismissals were due to the 
failure of victims to identify defendants, victim's desire not 
to prosecute, victim's failure to respond to court when 
requested, victim's inability to identify stolen property, or 
re-evaluation of the charges by the Assistant District 
Attorney assigned to the case after further investigation or the 
receipt of additional evidence. 

A total of 1,815 charges were placed "off calendar" prior 



-4- 









. 



to final disposition because the defendants failed to appear 
or because the defendants were minors. In the former, bench 
warrants (BW) were issued and in the latter, the cases were 
certified to the Youth Guidance Center for filing of a 
petition in the Juvenile Court. 

Prosecution was terminated or suspended in the case of 
drug-related charges which resulted in diversion of the defen- 
dants from the criminal process for a period of six months to 
two years for education and counseling at the direction of the 
Adult Probation Department. Some 252 persons were placed by 
court on diversion programs. Some 147 persons successfully 
completed the diversion program, and pursuant to the provisions 
of the Penal Code, their cases were dismissed by the court. At 
the end of the fiscal year, 29 persons had diversion hearings 
pending. Six persons failed to complete the diversion period; 
their cases were returned to calendar for prosecution. 

Some misdemeanor cases were terminated or suspended because 
the defendant's mental condition required expert evaluation; 
others because they arose at the same time as a felony charge 
for which the defendant was being prosecuted. In such cases, 
the misdemeanor charge trailed, or followed, the prosecution 
of the felony charge . 

Misdemeanor Dispositions 

1. Total charges (general and jury departments . . • 23,211 

2. Guilty or nolo contendere pleas « 9,223 

3. No complaint filed. 4,678 

(Other charges were dropped where the cases on 
individual defendants were settled by the above 
dispositions.) 

A total of 1,815 charges, or 7%, were taken off calendar. 
Thus, when the total number of charges, 23,211, is reduced by 
subtracting the off-calendar charges and those charges where 
no complaint was filed, the total number of charges prosecuted 
as misdemeanors is 16,718. If the number of charges resulting 
in guilty pleas is added to those dismissed upon plea to 
another charge, the number of charges successfully prosecuted 
is 15,589 or 67%. 

The following chart illustrates the disposition of 
misdemeanor charges during the fiscal year: 



-5- 



CO 

o 



g 

z 



P 
CO 
H 

a 
S 
§ 
B 

CO 
O 

(U 
CO 



fH 

« 


^ <*" n £ ! 


<f o> vo en oq if 


1 CJ' 


v£> 


i 




■•■d 


ir 


!a 












<t 




3N in O <M CM r- 


i 0> 


o 


OOI f-4 


H 


o cnicni 


H 




CI 


r-l 


rH 


o 


scOvCdHh 


> CO 


<t 


r-4 f»* 


CM 


H 


v H 


CM 


1 


ocl 


r>. 


CM 


rH 


r-t cn o 


1 


rH 




















vO 


CO 
CM 


, 


Off 
alendar 


<r» h n o 

CO H N "5 
r-l 


n >d* <o <t <""> C 


5 CM 


CM 


SO 


mvo 


o> 


H 


C 


r*x 


\C 


•H 


l>. 


m 




in voinHc 

CO o 


i cn 


r* 


r-l 


mcM 


H 


H 


H 


r-l 




r» 


o 

m 


rH 
00 
rH 




u 






























VO 




sed 
other 


<t <*-» £ 

o n i** rr 

eg r> m 


<f CN 00 r-f <n u- 


■>CM 


CM 


<t 


<3N 


r~- 


r-l 


iT 


n-* 


r* 


CO 


rH 


-d- 


o> O •>* cr» m c 


")0> 


O 


<J 


o 


<J 


CO 


CM 


^C 


o 


on 


00 


ON 


VO 


CM 


HHMfl s* 


3 r-l 


<t 




rH 










r-l 




<t 


CO 
r-l 


CO 
VO 


t 


CO 






























■H « 


































8 o» 


































COrH 




. 




























s*2 


•h a 

O 

M-l 


o N D 9 

H r-l 


nooo>Hnc 


3 r*. 


vO 


m 


ON 


n 


r-l 


O 


P-. 


ir 


o> 


ir 


m 


00 


lo 


00 OOHO 
CN <)" r 


•s m 
4 


rH 

r-l 


r-l 


00 


CM 


iH 


r-l 




CM 




o> 


m 

CO 


CO 
rH 
CM 




■M 
(3 


































•H 


































cd 

—4 


































o Comp! 
Filed 


VD H *"• *° 


en cm cm vo o^ c 


3 O 


r»» 


rH 


CM 


m 


CM 


CM 


C 


C 


C 


<M 


00 


CO 


B-2 

ON 


cm vo a 


3 1^ 


<t 

CM 


<t 




-i 












r-l 


<t 
<t 

r-l 


vO 


rH 


z 


































•o 




















■ 














lty an 

Nolo 


CO 3"* "3 

r-l JO -* 


OM^IHHOC 


3 CO 


ON 


on 


ON 


X) 


m 


o> 


V£> 


vO 


00 


.>. 


O 


CO 


r>S 
ON 


on On CO vO <f r 


-«<t 


vO 


vO 


m 


3 


<t 


co 


^ 


sD 




P»« 


r-» 


CM 


CO 


COtH COCM o 

r-l 


D^t 


m 




•>r 


-1 




tH 








H 


O 
CO 


CM 

ON 




•H 

3 


































o 
















































/-> 
















o 






















> 
















-u 






















U 








01 








3 






















s 








co 








cd 






















s 








c 




CU 


CO 
























3 








0) 




OX 


c 


C 


CO 




















a 








o 




rt 





•rl 


u 




















C 








•H 




e 


•H 




o 




















•rl 








r-l 




cd 


4J 


« 


C 




















r-l 












•0 


•H 


c 


cd 




















a> 








TJ 






T3 


•rl 


cu 


















•0 








OJ 




> 


C 


^ 


s 












W 










M 




3 




4J 





C 


0) 










DRUG OFFENSES 
Marijuana 
Dangerous drugs 
Other drug offenses 
"TSSAULT AND BATTERY 




CJ 


& 




1 




o 




CO 




U 


o 


•r-l 


'O 












< 


o 




> 




3 




CO 




OJ 




u 


CO 


CO 










W 


D 




4J 




O 




•H 


H 





rl 


-a 


•H 


2 








H W 


P- 


o 




r-l 




•H 




<U 


c 


o 


o 




B 










CO Z 




H 




aj 




H 


oJ 


rl 


»H 


rl 


CW 


rl 




z 








w w 


K 


►J 




3 






C 




> 







0) 


o 










2 u 


PC 






^ 




W 


^ 


U 


^1 




t3 


c 


•H 


B 








2 co ! 


Z E- 


u 




CJ 




c 


rl 


o 


rl 


c 


0) 


•H 


IW 


§ 








< H PC ' 


3 


z 








•rl 


OJ 




TJ 


3 


<u 


cd 


VM 


w 








c* O i 


MC 
3 r- 


r- 

< 




u 




4J 

cd 

U 




t3 
OJ 

•d 


CO 


rl 




CO 


4J 

e 




Cd 

u 

4J 


Q 

CO 
r-l 






cy: 

u 
pt 

§ 


CO Z H H Z 


H pc 


u 




c 


w 


•H 


4J 


ti 


ei 


p 


CD 


CJ 




S 




H 


O i-Jco>J 


h£ 


H 


CO 

9$ 


c 




r: 

CJ 


o 





a 


r-l 


id 


cd 


C 


CI 


* 


rJ 


W 


OiCQHHO 


:0 E- 


o 


o 


3 


r-l 


u 


•U 


m 


o 


4J 


CO 


0) 


£1 


I 


<: 


o 


K<WWW 
3: O oS Pw -l l 


2^ 


z 

H 


Z 


CO 


a 


c 


3 


V 


OJ 


•H 


g 





4J 


g 


oi 


2*r- 


M 


> 


•ri cd 


w 


rl 


43 


3 


o 


O 


e 











































I 

vO 
l 



1 










Felony Cases in Municipal Court 

After the filing of a felony complaint or the issuance 
of a felony arrest warrant and subsequent arrest, and after 
the defendant is arraigned, a case is set for preliminary 
hearing before a Department of the Municipal Court. At that 
hearing the magistrate determines from the evidence whether 
there is reasonable and probably cause to require the defendant 
to stand trial in the Superior Court, 

During this fiscal year three Municipal Court departments 
conducted preliminary hearings; one additional department 
conducted such hearings two days a week. An Assistant District 
Attorney was assigned to each of these courts. 

A total of 14,942 felony charges, involving 9,266 
defendants, were set for preliminary hearings in the general 
courts. During the preliminary hearing the prosecution has 
the burden of establishing that a crime has been committed and 
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the 
defendant committed the crime. 

During this fiscal year, 40% of the felony cases were 
held to answer by the Municipal Court magistrate and sent to 
the Superior Court for trial; 2% were indicted by the Grand 
Jury; 4% pled guilty to misdemeanor charges; 32% were dis- 
charged when co-defendants pled guilty; 18% were discharged; 
and 4% were subject to other procedures, such as certifica- 
tion to the Superior Court, for determination of the defendant's 
mental competency to stand trial, certification of juvenile 
defendants to Youth Guidance Center, and issuance of bench 
warrant for the arrest of defendants who failed to appear 
at court proceedings. 

The following table reflects the types and dispositions 
of felony cases handled in the Municipal Court: 



-7- 



NO WARRANT FELONY ARREST CHARGES 
JULY 1973 - JUNE 1974 
FELONY REBOOKED AS MISDEMEANOR r 



OFFENSE PROSECUTION 


DISCHARGED 


OTHER FELONY 


PROSECUTION 


TOTAL 


DRUGS: 
OPIATE 


1277 


811 


29 


20 


2137 


MARIJUANA 


1177 


542 


19 


307 


2045 


DANGEROUS 
DRUGS 


401 


325 


13 


36 


775 


OTHER DRUG 
OFFENSES 


30 


56 


3 


4 


93 


HOMICIDE 


65 


12 


1 


— — 


78 


VEHICULAR 
MANSLAUGHTER 


8 


— 


— 


2 


10 


DRIVING 
OFFENSES 


51 


4 


— — 


37 


92 


DEADLY WEAPONS 


204 


119 


1 


69 


393 


RAPE 


54 


98 


2 


2 


156 


OTHER SEX 
OFFENSES 


168 


71 


— 


4 


243 


CONSPIRACY 


35 


197 


2 


4 


238 


BOOKMAKING 


63 


20 


tm» 


1 


84 


CHECK AND 
FORGERY 


397 


164 


11 


43 


615 


THEFT 


270 


161 


17 


82 


530 


AUTO THEFT 


270 


262 


2 


67 


601 


ASSAULT 


649 


506 


12 


574 


1741 


BURGLARY 


883 


283 


16 


190 


1372 


RECEIVING STOLEN 
PROPERTY 


493 


1144 


29 


163 


1829 


ROBBERY 


490 


338 


8 


23 


859 


OTHER 
FELONIES 


320 


357 


63 


211 


1051 



TOTAL 



7304 



5470 



228 



1939 



14^42 



PERCENT 



49 



36.5 



1.5 



13 



100% 



Other Functions 

The Municipal Court Division has voluminous communications 
with the general public and other agencies which do not result 
in criminal litigation. Many persons with civil and criminal 
problems are referred to this office by the police department 
and other public and private agencies. Every effort is made 
to direct the inquiring party to the proper agency if his case 
is not within the geographical or statutory jurisdiction of 
this office. 

There are, of course, numerous inquiries by telephone 
call which require the legal opinion of an Assistant District 
Attorney. Telephone inquiries are also directed to the proper 
agency for resolutions of problems which this office cannot 
handle • 

Considerable investigation by the Assistant District 
Attorney issuing arrest and search warrants precedes the filing 
of the specific factual declarations which are required by law. 
All search and arrest warrants are prepared or reviewed by an 
Assistant District Attorney who must remain abreast of changes 
in the relevant case law. 

During the fiscal years, 1,051 arrest warrants and 191 
search warrants were prepared and issued. 



-9-. 



Appellate Division 

The Appellate Division of the District Attorney's Office 
handles appeals from Municipal Court misdemeanor convictions, 
motions to suppress and demurrers. Such appeals are taken to 
the Appellate Department of the Superior Court and are filed 
either by the defendant or the People. The Assistant District 
Attorney in this division prepares and files motions, affidavits, 
briefs, and other pleadings relating to such appeals. Each 
Friday morning he argues the People's case before the three- 
judge Appellate Court. 

The lawyer assigned to appeals also appears in Municipal 
Court to represent the People in connection with demurrers and 
various pretrial motions. There were approximately 663 such 
matters during this past fiscal year. 

The appeals attorney also prepares briefs and appears for 
oral argument in response to petitions for extraordinary writs 
in both the Superior Court and the United States District Court 
for the Northern District of California. 

Four appeals from judges' orders were filed by the People. 
One of these appeals was later abandoned, two resulted in 
rulings favorable to the People and one is still pending. 

During the same fiscal period a total of 206 from 
convictions were filed by defendants. The results of those 
appeals and the appeals pending from the prior fiscal period 
are as follows: 

1. Conviction Affirmed 31 

2. Conviction Reversed 3 

3. Appeals Dismissed on Motion of 
District Attorney for Failure of 
Defendant to prosecute with due 

Diligence 134 

4. Appeals Abandoned by Appellant 6 

5. Trial de Novo Ordered by Court 4 

6. Appeals Pending 37 

TOTAL 215 

The total number of appeals indicated above includes nine 
appeals handled this fiscal year which were filed in the preceding 
fiscal year. 



-1-0- 



Superior Court Division 

The Superior Court division consists of twenty-one 
attorneys whose primary concern is the court prosecution of 
felony criminal cases. 

Superior Court attorneys are also engaged in reviewing 
the investigations of law enforcement officers and the evalu- 
ation of these felony cases set for trial. Increased specialized 
prosecution has recently been emphasized to increase the 
effectiveness of criminal investigation and trials involving 
homicide, sexual assault, narcotic violation and vice control. 

The Superior Court Master Calendar Department is staffed 
by three assistant district attorneys who evaluate cases, 
negotiate dispositions by pleas of guilty, prepare and present 
replies to pretrial motions and assign cases for trial to the 
trial departments of the Superior Court. 

All members of the District Attorney's staff in the 
Superior Court participate and represent the People in ancillary 
proceedings in the Master Calendar Department. These proceedings 
include: 

1. hearings on certifications for the determination 
of present sanity of an accused; 

2. hearings on petitions for writs of habeas corpus 
and writs of mandate; 

3. hearings on petitions for commitments of defendants 
as mentally disordered sex offenders; 

4. hearings on petitions to determine whether or 

not a defendant is addicted to the use of narcotics; 

5. hearings on motions to revoke or modify probation. 

Evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress evidence are 
regularly heard and argued every morning of the week in trial 
court departments prior to the commencement of Jury trials. 

Fiscal year 1973-197** dispositions are as follows: 

New Case Filings : (By number of defendants) 

1. By Information 2,15^ 

2. By Indictment 79 



.-11- 



Dispositions: (By number of defendants and including 

cases carried over from last year.) 

1. Guilty Pleas 1,915 

2. Court Trials 17 

a. Convictions 17 

b. Acquittals 

3. Jury Trials 165 

a. Convictions 111 (84%) 

b. Acquittals 21 (16%) 

4. Jury Disagreement 33 

(Jury disagreements are reflected in 
guilty pleas and dismissals as a result 
of subsequent evaluation on both sides.) 

5. Other Dispositions 

a. Dismissal 239 

(E.g., insufficient evidence; interest-of- 
justice; defendant deceased.) 

b. Referral to 238 
non-criminal 
jurisdiction 

(E.g., juvenile court, insanity, and/or 
sexual psychopath commitments.) 

RECAPITULATION: 

Total Defendants 2,541 

Guilty 2,043 (81%) 

Not Guilty 21 ( 1%) 

Dismissed 239 ( 9%) 

Referred 238 ( 9%) 

(Disagreements omitted.) 

Total: 100% 

In the spring of 1974, two major criminal trials were 
prosecuted by this office in other counties in California. 
This resulted from motions for change of venue filed by the 
defendants. Attorneys from this office successfully prosecuted 
a two-week homicide trial in Sacramento County and a three- 
week kidnap-rape trial in San Bernardino County. 



-12- 



J uvenile Division 

The District Attorney, when requested by the Judge of 
the Juvenile Court, is required by statute to ascertain and 
present the evidence in court trials of minors in Juvenile 
Court. These are cases where minors are either alleged to have 
committed acts which would constitute crimes if committed by 
adults, or a minor has been neglected or abused in a manner which 
may result in criminal charges against parents, guardians or 
other adults. 

From July 1, 1973 to March 4, 1974, one assistant district 
attorney was assigned by this office to the Juvenile Court. 
During this period the attorney assigned evaluated prospective 
cases as requested by the court and presented evidence in 
78 contested matters. 

Beginning March 4, 1974 three assistant district attorneys 
were assigned to the Juvenile Court Division of the District 
Attorney f s Office. Their initial function is to decide in each 
potential charge of a violation of section 602 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code (a criminal violation by a juvenile) whether 
there exists sufficient evidence to sustain such a petition 
beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, and if so, 
to accept the more important felony cases for presentation to 
the courts. 

The number of criminal type cases accepted depends upon 
the limits of manpower and court time available. During the 
months of March through June 1974, the Juvenile Division accepted 
for presentation in the Juvenile Courts 305 felony cases, and 
carried to final disposition 353 such cases. 

The most serious cases are those involving homicides and 
grievous assaults by youthful gangs, robberies, assaults with 
deadly weapons, rapes, and other serious offenses by juveniles. 



-13- 



Vice Control 

The program formulated in September 1971 to better coordi- 
nate all vice enforcement activities between the San Francisco 
Police Department and the District Attorney's Office was 
continued through fiscal year 1973-1974. In addition to per- 
fecting systems which had previously been developed with 
reference to the prosecution of vice related cases, special 
attention was given to the following: 

1. Prosecution of known and suspected pimps and panderers; 

2. Development of a profile in order to determine what 
persons were most apt to engage in vice related 
activities, and what procedures were available to 
minimize the incidence of vice related offenses; 

3. Education of citizens to the problems involved in 
such prosecutions and of the effects of vice in a 
community. 

Prosecution of known and Suspected Pimps 

Since September 1971 the processing of all cases involving 
suspected or known pimps or panderers have been handled by a 
single assistant district attorney assigned to vice control. 
This procedure has resulted in a more expeditious and equal 
disposition of cases involving such persons. In fiscal year 
1973-1974, 34 pimps were convicted in the Superior Court. 
This represents almost a 50% decrease in the number of such 
cases prosecuted since last year. Two cases were dismissed 
because a witness for the prosecution in each case was unavailable 
There are now 2 cases awaiting trial in the Superior Court, and 
5 cases awaiting preliminary hearing. Felony warrants are 
outstanding for 6 persons. One of these is also charged 
in a federal Unlawful Flight warrant. The total number of 
persons convicted for pimping or pandering since the inception 
of the vice control plan is 145. 

Development of the Profile 

In order to effectively prosecute persons for vice related 
activity, it is essential that the prosecutor and the police 
officer know the character and background of the individual who 
engages in such conduct. This knowledge facilitates prosecution 
and provides an insight into how such activity arises and what 
conditions permit vice to grow. This information has been 
invaluable in permitting law enforcement to anticipate in what 
areas to expect vice activity. 

Other on-going programs relating to use of the Red Light 
Abatement Act and the training of district attorney and law 
enforcement personnel were continued. 

-14- 



. Business Investigation • Consumer Protection Service 

This past fiscal year has been the first full year of 
operation of the Business Investigation - Consumer Protection 
Service, The unit's primary function now is consumer protec- 
tion although it continues to assist in the field of business 
inve s t igat ion • 

Consumer Protection 

During the past fiscal year, consumer protection enforcement 
has grown steadily. 1,024 new complaints were received. During 
the same period 855 matters were resolved which resulted in 
consumers receiving goods, services or money valued at approxi- 
mately $21,000.00. Investigation of most of these matters is 
initiated by citizen complaints and various private and govern- 
mental agencies. Each business or individual complained against 
is contacted in person or by letter in an attempt to resolve 
the matter. In some cases a hearing is held at the Office of 
the District Attorney and all interested parties are invited to 
appear. 

If the matter cannot be resolved a civil or criminal 
action may be instituted depending upon the facts of each case. 
Criminal prosecution may result in the convicted person being 
sent to jail, fined, or both. In addition the court may order 
restitution to the victims. Civil actions involve the filing 
of a civil complaint and the obtaining of a temporary restraining 
order or a preliminary injunction and ultimately a permanent 
injunction. These proceedings result not only in stopping 
illegal practices but also in obtaining $2,500.00: penalty for 
each violation. 

During the past year 19 injunctive actions were initiated. 
9 judgments totaling $47,133.67 were obtained. At present there 
are 17 civil actions awaiting trial. 

Following is a resume of some of the civil actions resolved 
during the past year: 

People vs. Wilson's House of Suede and Leather 

This was a civil action alleging false advertising in which 
the defendant paid a penalty of $25,000.00 and was enjoined from 
continuing its unlawful business practices. 

People vs. Jefco 

This case involved a charge of unfair business competition 
in which defendant agreed to discontinue the illegal activity 
and pay $2,500.00 in civil penalties. 



-15- 



People vs. Fancy Pants and The Boot Hook, Corp. 

These two cases involved acts of unfair business competi- 
tion by the defendants violating the Endangered Species Act. 
Each defendant agreed to discontinue violating the law and 
paid penalties totaling $3,151.50. 

People vs. Union Square Portrait Studio 

A judgment was obtained awarding $10,982.17 in civil 
penalties, restitution to the victims and costs, against the 
defendant for various acts of false and misleading advertisement. 

This unit has also prosecuted consumer complaints which 
have resulted in criminal prosecution. These cases involved 
charges such as contracting without a license; violation of the 
auto repair act; health code violations and other related 
criminal activities. In two such cases, People vs. Bertolina 
and People vs. Ellingsen , the defendants were found guilty of 
maintaining unsanitary premises where food is dispensed and 
paid fines totaling $700.00. In the case of People vs» Weingarten , 
the defendant, an automotive repair dealer, was found guilty oi 
false and misleading representations and sentenced to jail and 
ordered to pay a fine of $1,000.00. 

Business Investigation 

During the past fiscal year this section investigated and 
prosecuted the following types of offenses: Embezzlements, 
Thefts by False Pretenses, Corporation Security Violations, 
Forgeries, and other related criminal activities. 

Investigations are initiated by complaints from citizens 
and from federal, state, and city and county agencies. The 
first step in investigation is an interview with the complainant 
or with an investigator from a governmental agency. This is 
followed by securing of further evidence, if needed, and inter- 
views with all persons who may be witnesses. A warrant is 
issued if it is determined there are sufficient grounds for a 
criminal charge. 

In some cases, however, a hearing is held at the Office of 
the District Attorney, at which time all interested parties 
are invited to appear. If no further investigation is required, 
a warrant may issue or the matter may' be dismissed, depending 
upon the facts of each case. 



-16- 



Grand Jury 

One important function of the District Attorney is to 
act as legal advisor to the Grand Jury in all criminal matters . 
He is responsible for the presentation of evidence in felony 
cases where an indictment is sought. Witnesses are called and 
cases are presented each Monday evening. When indictments are 
voted, they are formally presented to the presiding judge of 
the Superior Court on the following Thursday morning. 

During the fiscal year 1973-1974, 289 witnesses were 
called to testify before the Grand Jury. A total of 52 
indictments were returned involving 79 defendants, with a total 
of 268 charges. 

A review of the calendar year 1973 indicates the following: 

Number of indictments filed in 1973 47 

Number of defendants indicted in 1973 75 

Number of defendants with final dispositions . 72 

Guilty 56 

Not guilty 6 

Deceased 1 

Dismissed (plea to other felony, 

995 P.C., etc.) 6 

State hospital (insane) .... 3 
Fugitives 3 

Prom the above figures, it is apparent that of the 62 
defendants whose cases were finally disposed of by guilty pleas 
or trial, 90.3$ were convicted. 

In 1973, the term of the Grand Jury was changed by the 
Legislature to begin and end on a fiscal rather than calendar 
year basis. In view of this change, the Grand Jury agreed to 
serve the additional six months until the new Grand Jury was 
selected. 



•17- 



Bureau of Family Relations 

The BFR investigates complaints of an alleged criminal 
nature arising between members of a family or quasi-family. 

Four staff members investigate .these complaints which 
include every type of domestic difficulty. 

Alternative actions to resolution of these domestic 
complaints are explored prior to the issuance of any arrest 
warrant. District Attorney complaint hearing notices are issued 
and informal hearings are conducted to determine the facts 
regarding the alleged crime. The sanctions of the law are 
defined to both the complainant and defendant. In most cases 
the complaint hearing resolves the matter to the satisfaction 
of all concerned persons. The need for filing formal criminal 
charges is usually avoided, saving time and expense of lawyers 
and courts. 

Bureau staff personnel are sensitive to the various needs 
of our clientele. Investigators often refer persons requiring 
other services such as legal help or family counseling to local 
agencies like the Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation and 
the Family Service Agency. 

The Bureau enforces Section 270 of the California Penal 
Code (failure to provide for a dependent minor) in behalf of 
self-supporting complainants whose children do not qualify for 
aid by public welfare. Every effort is made to secure voluntary 
contributions for support. During the past year greater emphasis 
in support by delinquent fathers was achieved by establishment 
of a caseload system. Of the total 692 non-support complaints 
handled by the Bureau, only 34 cases required the filing of 
formal charges with issuance of arrest warrants. A total of 
19 defendants were placed under probation supervision as a 
result of successful prosecution in the criminal courts this 
past year. The Bureau made 83 voluntary referrals to the Adult 
Probation Department under Section 580(d) of the California 
Welfare and Institutions Code. This was almost double the 
previous year's total. In most cases the investigator was able 
to secure the cooperation of the estranged parent to meet his 
responsibility for contributing to his child's support. 

Much time and effort is exerted in locating persons whose 
current whereabouts may be unknown to the complainant. The 
Bureau uses many sources of information for this purpose. This 
requires correspondence with public agencies such as the 
California Department of Human Resources and the California 
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, and with 
unions, employers, attorneys, and private individuals. 



-18- 






! 



The BFR initiates investigations involving the Uniform 
Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) seeking child 
support from parents residing in jurisdictions outside of 
San Francisco. The Bureau made 49 such investigations for 
URESA processing during the past year. 

Bureau investigators held over 3,000 complaint interviews 
during the past fiscal year* These resulted in the issuance 
of 1,125 complaint hearing notices and approximately 1,272 
referrals to other agencies „ Investigators conducted 564 
complaint hearings. Over 5,000 telephone inquiries regarding 
case status, specific complaints, and general information were 
handled by Bureau staff. 

The following is a summary of complaints by classification 
processed this past year: 

Classification Cases 

242 Penal Code (Battery) 790 

270 Penal Code (Non-Support of Minor Children) 692 

270 (a) Penal Code (Non-Support of Indigent Wife) 10 

273 (d) Penal Code (Felony Wife Beating) 8 

279 Penal Code (Denial of Visiting Rights) 100 

415 Penal Code (Disturbing the Peace) 286 

594 Penal Code (Malicious Mischief) 142 

653 (m) (Annoying Telephone Communications) 161 

Domestic Difficulties (Non-Criminal) 627 

Drinking 259 

Narcotics 51 

Mental Illness 95 

Threats 430 

Unwed Mothers (Establishment of Paternity) 47 

Miscellaneous 376 

TOTAL: 4,074 

During the past year a number of programs were initiated 
for purposes of operational efficiency. One program involved 
the reduction of the number of outstanding arrest warrants 
for violation of 270 Penal Code by intensified service of such 
warrants. At this time only eight warrants are outstanding, 
and all are from the current year. A system for feedback from 
the San Francisco Police Department was instituted to assure 
processing of these warrants. 



-19- 



Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Division 

The primary function of this division is to secure child 
support under the provisions of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement 
of Support Act from fathers who live in a state or county other 
than that in which their children reside. Activities during the 
fiscal year are summarized as follows: 

Cases initiated for local children .... 78 

Average number of such cases per month . . 6.50 

Cases initiated for children of other 
Jurisdictions 303 

Average number of such cases per month . . 25.25 

Total reciprocal support cases processed . 381 

Average of new reciprocal support cases 

per month 31.75 

Contempt citations initiated for payment 
delinquencies 57 

Changes of venue from San Francisco 

to o-;her jurisdictions 51 

Changes of venue to San Francisco 

from other Jurisdictions 7 

The results of local court proceedings in the above-listed 
cases can be summarized as follows: 

Support orders 159 

Support order modifications 51 

Interim orders re contempt 45 

Wage assignments 53 

Warrants of attachment for contempt ... 70 

Miscellaneous other orders 17 

Total orders secured for other 

Jurisdictions 395 

Support orders obtained by other 
Jurisdictions for local children 
at our request 54 

-20- 



The district attorney was directed by the San Francisco 
Superior Court to conduct civil contempt proceedings against 
certain persons who were under a court order to pay child 
support through the San Francisco Adult Probation Department 
and failed to do so. Ninety-nine such cases were referred to 
the district attorney by the adult probation officer. Court 
proceedings resulted in fifty-five support order modifications 
and thirty-seven wage assignments. Sixteen warrants of attach- 
mentwere issued calling for the apprehension of men who failed 
to appear before the court . 

Civil paternity prosecutions against the alleged fathers 
of children dependent on welfare constitute another part of the 
division's work. The statistics regarding cases of this type 
are as follows: 

Summonses and complaints served 17 

Defaults entered 13 

Child support orders issued 11 

Mother of child refused to 

cooperate further in the case 15 

Mother and child left San Francisco 4 

The child support orders which were secured in civil 
paternity cases called for payments to San Francisco by fathers 
of illegitimate children in the amount of $14,443.20 per year. 

Twenty-five civil Judgments were also secured by the 
division against surety companies which had issued bail bonds 
guaranteeing the appearance in court of criminal defendants 
who then failed to appear. Collections on these judgments, 
and on others previously secured, may be summarized as follows: 

Total collected on judgments $139,725 

Total interest collected 9,599 

Total $149,324 

Judgments not yet collected on 7-1-74: 

On appeal by surety companies .... $ 8,500 
Surety company in liquidation .... 51,625 
Collections in normal process .... 38,500 

Total £ 98,625 



-21- 



Extradition Di vis ion 

Extradition is defined as the surrender by one state or 
nation to another of an individual accused or convicted of an 
offense outside its own territory and within the territorial 
jurisdiction of the other, which, being competent to try and 
punish him, demands his surrender. Rendition is the return of 
such individual to such demanding state or nation. 

With the increasing mobility of society it is inevitable 
that this phase of criminal law is expanding both as to numbers 
of cases and distances involved in the return of prisoners. 

When a person is arrested in another Jurisdiction on the 
request of a demanding state he may request a formal hearing 
before the Chief of State of the arresting jurisdiction before 
he is returned. In many cases, however, after arrest the accused 
does not make such a demand but waives formal extradition pro- 
ceedings and returns voluntarily to the demanding jurisdiction. 

If a formal extradition is requested, documents consisting 
of witnesses 1 statements, pictures of the defendant and other 
relevant evidence must be forwarded to the office of the 
governor of California who in turn forwards a request to the 
holding state with a request that that Chief of State, another 
Governor or foreign head of state, issue a warrant for the arrest 
and rendition of the accused to the State of California. 

During the past year this office processed six formal 
extradition requests, approved and arranged for return of 
prisoners on approximately twenty-five waivers of extradition 
and consulted with many local police officers on the status of 
fugitives who are being sought by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation following the filing of a complaint in Federal 
District Court by the United States Attorney for violation of 
the federal laws for Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution. 



-22- 






Bureau of Investigation 

i h i »«ir-,giTi-Tr — m-nr i *- : . t— r»*-rr « . .. . - •*— • 

The current organization of the San Francisco District 
Attorney's Investigation Bureau consists of a Chief Investi- 
gator, a Senior investigator and eleven investigators. Three 
investigators are assigned to Business Investigation and 
Consumer Protection, four to the Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children section, one to Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of 
Support section, and three to the Criminal Division. 

Criminal Division 

The main function of the investigator is to gather facts 
by conducting field investigations, finding witnesses and 
serving subpoenas in preparation for court. 

The investigators take statements of witnesses, testify 
in court as necessary, assist the Assistant District Attorney 
during the course of a trial and do research and reports on 
Prisoners ' Demands for Speedy Trial and Certificates of 
Rehabilitation and Pardon. 

Casework Statistics 

July 1, 1973 - June 30, 1974 

1. Investigations in Pending Criminal Prosecutions. .2,052 

2. Subpoenas of Witnesses 488 

3. Reciprocal Support Enforcement 

(Service of Process) 350 

4. Demands for Speedy Trial (Made by Persons 

in Custody for Other Offenses) 336 

5. Rehabilitation and Pardons (Applications 

Forwarded to Office of the Governor) 25 



•23- 



Psychiatric Division 
The primary functions of this Division are: 

A. Investigation of alleged mentally disordered 
and intemperate persons, and those addicted 
to narcotics and habit-forming drugs; 

B. To represent the City and County as designated 
in section 5114 of the Welfare and Institutions 

Code; (judicial Commitment of Mentally Disordered Person) 

C. To Interview and advise persons requesting 
information on psychiatric facilities and 
legal procedures relating to the problems of 
mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction. 

Complaints concerning mental illness or deficiency, 
alcoholism and drug and narcotic addiction are investigated by 
a psychologist on the staff of this office. Where reasonable 
and probable cause exists and no relative or other interested 
parties are located or willing to assume responsibility this 
office takes appropriate action under the Penal or the Welfare 
and Institutions Code. 

Section 5114 of the California Welfare and Institutions 
Code concerning mental illness specifically assigns the 
responsibility of presenting the People* s case at any judicial 
proceeding under that code to the District Attorney. A member 
of the legal staff has been assigned to these duties which 
include jury trials, writs of habeas corpus and conservatorship 
hearings concerning the alleged mentally ill person. 

Statistics 

Jury trials 2 

'Pound mentally ill 1 

Accepted voluntary hospitalization ... 1 

Writs, habeas corpus 11 

Denied 8 

Granted 1 

Withdrawn 2 

Investigations 241 

Mental illness 151 

Narcotics & drugs 46 

Intemperance 44 

The Psychiatric Division conducted numerous investigations 
which resulted in the locating of relatives or other interested 
persons who were willing and able to assume responsibility" for the 
patient and arrange private hospitalization or psychiatric care 
without the necessity of court -proceedings. 

-24- 



■tf 



ANNUAL REPORT TO MAYOR 



Submitted by 
JOHN JAY FERDON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY 



July 1, 1974 - June 30, 1975 



DOCUMENTS 

"975 



r.ANCisco 

PlTOLlC LIBRARY 



CONTENTS 

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 1 

GRAND JURY 4 

HOMICIDE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT 

PROSECUTION 6 

FELONY VICE PROSECUTION 9 

BUSINESS INVESTIGATION - 

CONSUMER PROTECTION SERVICE ... 11 

ELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT 14 

EXTRADITION OF FUGITIVES 15 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION 16 

BAIL BOND COLLECTIONS 18 

JUVENILE DIVISION 19 

MUNICIPAL COURT DIVISION 22 

SUPERIOR COURT APPEALS 26 

MUNICIPAL COURT APPELLATE 

DIVISION 27 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 28 

PSYCHIATRIC DIVISION 29 



SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

The main function of the Superior Court Division is the 
prosecution of felony cases. This division consists of 
twenty-one attorneys, three of whom are necessarily assigned 
on a full-time basis to the Master Calendar Department. 

All criminal matters filed in the Superior Court are pro- 
cessed through the Master Calendar Department, which was es- 
tablished in November 1969. This system has proved to be an 
efficient and expeditious method of calendar management. At 
the time the master calendar system was instituted, there were 
788 felony cases awaiting trial. Through the use of additional 
trial courts and diligent efforts of this office, the Superior 
Court, and the Public Defender's Office, this backlog of cases 
was eliminated. 

For the past several years the calendar has been current, 
with new case filings and case dispositions being approximately 
equal. Most defendants are now pleading guilty or being brought 
to trial within thirty to forty days of their first appearance 
in Superior Court. This rapid processing of cases and conse- 
quent rapid sentencing has resulted in the removal of dangerous 
criminals from the streets at the earliest possible time, thus 
preventing them from committing additional offenses while on 
bail. 

The attorneys assigned to the Master Calendar Department 
evaluate cases and assign them for trial; they prepare and pre- 
sent replies to pretrial motions; and participate in pretrial 
settlement conferences when the trial attorney assigned to a 
case is not available. 

In addition to the attorneys regularly assigned to the 
master calendar, all members of the District Attorney's staff 
in the Superior Court participate and represent the People in 
ancillary proceedings in that department. These proceedings 
inc lude : 

1. Hearings en certifications for the determination 
of present sanity of an accused; 

2. Hearings on petitions for writs of habeas corpus 
and writs of mandate; 

3. Hearings on petitions for commitments of defendants 
as mentally disordered sex offenders; 

4. Hearings on petitions to determine whether or not 
a defendant is addicted to the use of narcotics; 

5. Hearings on motions to revoke or modify probation. 

- 1 - 



Supplementing the Master Calendar Department, the Criminal 
Division of the Superior Court utilized six trial departments 
on a year-round basis for the conduct of jury trials. Eviden- 
tiary hearings on motions to suppress evidence are regularly 
heard and argued every morning in trial court departments prior 
to the commencement of jury trials. 

During the past year, continued emphasis has been placed 
on the vigorous and successful prosecution of crimes of vio- 
lence. To achieve this purpose, special prosecution units have 
been utilized to increase the effectiveness of investigation, 
preparation and trial in cases involving homicide, sexual as- 
sault, arson and robbery. 

The specialized prosecution concept has also been used to 
increase effective prosecution in other areas which require a 
high degree of legal expertise, such as consumer protection and 
business fraud, election campaign and conflict of interest, 
vice and narcotics. 

For the year 1973, the last year that statistics for this 
county are available from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, 
San Francisco committed 699 defendants out of a total of 2119 
convicted defendants to state institutions. There were 328 
defendants, or 15.4%, sentenced and committed to state prison. 
This is in comparison to the last published statewide statistics 
which show that only 11.67o of all persons convicted of felonies 
were committed to state prison in the year 1972. Furthermore, 
90.4% of all felony convictions in San Francisco (1973) resulted 
in felony sentences being imposed by our courts, as compared to 
a statewide average of 67.4% (1972). 

A total of 1525 informations involving 1829 defendants 
were filed, together with 73 indictments involving 101 defen- 
dants during the year 1974-1975. An additional 416 cases were 
filed involving writs of habeas corpus, petitions for narcotic 
offender commitment, municipal court guilty pleas, and other 
related matters. 

The dispositions of these cases are as follows : 

(By number of defendants and including cases carried 
over from last year) 

1. Guilty Pleas 1724 

2. Jury Trials 191 

a. Convictions 147 (77%) 

b. Acquittals 23 (12%) 

c. Jury Disagreements 21 (117o) 



- 2 - 



(Jury disagreements are also reflected in 
guilty pleas and dismissals as a result of 
subsequent evaluation on both sides.) 

3. Court Trials 11 

a. Convictions 11 

b. Acquittals 

4. Other Dispositions 

a. Dismissal 203 

(E.g., insufficient evidence; 
interest-of-justice; defendant 
deceased, guilty plea to other 
charges . ) 

b. Referral to non-criminal 
jurisdiction and fugitives 238 

(E.g., juvenile court, 
insanity, and/or sexual 
psychopath commitments.) 

Recapitulation t 

Total Defendants 2,346 

Guilty 1,882 (80%) 

Not Guilty 23 (1%) 

Dismissed 203 (9%) 

Referred 238 (10%) 

(Disagreements omitted) 



- 3 - 



GRAND JURY 



In accordance with the law enacted in 1972 (Penal Code 
Section 904.6), two Grand Juries were selected during this 
fiscal year. The first Grand Jury began its term in July, 
1974, hearing criminal cases as well as conducting authorized 
civil investigations. On March 20, 1975, a second Grand Jury 
was impanelled with sole jurisdiction to return criminal in- 
dictments. After this date, no criminal cases were presented 
to the first Grand Jury, which was now known as the Investi- 
gatory Grand Jury and was solely concerned with civil investi- 
gations. 

During the calendar year 1974, 316 witnesses testified 
before the Grand Jury. A total of 56 indictments were returned 
involving 90 defendants, 81 of these defendants have final 
dispositions as follows: 

Guilty 69 

Acquitted 

State Hospital 

(Insane - 1368 Penal Code) 5 

State Hospital 
(Not guilty by reason of 
Insanity - 1026 Penal Code) 2 

Dismissed 3 

Juvenile Court retained jurisdiction... 2 

From the above figures, it is apparent that of the 69 
defendants whose cases have been finally disposed of by plea 
or trial, all were convicted. 

During the fiscal year 1974-1975, 386 witnesses testified 
before the Grand Jury. A total of 73 indictments were returned 
involving 101 defendants, 86 of these defendants have final 



- 4 - 



dispositions as follows: 

Guilty 74 

Acquitted. • 

State Hospital 

(Insane - 1368 Penal Code) 4 

State Hospital 
(Not guilty by reason of 
Insanity - 1026 Penal Code) 3 

Dismissed • 3 

Juvenile Court retained jurisdiction. . 2 

All of the cases presented to the Grand Jury are major 
cases involving the most violent crimes such as murder, kid- 
napping, robbery, rape, and burglary. 

Once again, there were no acquittals when these cases 
were presented in Superior Court. Of the 74 guilty defendants, 
63 have been sentenced as of August 5, 1975. An examination 
of the sentences imposed (see below) demonstrates that almost 
all of those convicted received State Prison sentences. 

State Prison. 50 

(Includes 2 sentenced to death) 

State Prison, execution suspended 

with County Jail condition and 

Probation • 6 

California Youth Authority 1 

California Rehabilitation Center 1 

State Hospital as a Mentally 

Disordered Sex Offender 5 



- 5 - 



HOMICIDE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTION 



In order to insure effective prosecution of persons 
accused of serious crimes of violence, the District Attorney 
has set up special teams of attorneys to follow such cases 
from the investigation through the trial. The homicide 
team has worked effectively for a long time. The sex 
crimes team was organized in 1972, and has been concen- 
trating on the effective investigation and prosecution 
of rape cases long before the recent public emphasis on 
such prosecutions. This was the only District Attorney's 
office to set up such a special prosecution unit for this 
purpose. 

The attorneys on these teams take charge of the case 
as soon as it is presented to this office by the police. 
In some cases, this is prior to the arrest of the defendant. 
In all cases, the assigned assistant district attorneys 
review the available evidence, advise on proper charges, 
prepare search warrants and arrest warrants and interview 
material witnesses. Where possible, each attorney prosecutes 
the case from Municipal Court to Superior Court, being 
responsible for presenting evidence at the preliminary 
hearing or Grand Jury. The attorney then argues all 
pre-trial motions and ultimately tries the case in the 
Superior Court. This specialization produces better 
trial results and, especially in rape cases, keeps the 
victim from having to review the facts with more than 
one district attorney. 

During this year, two of the attorneys from the 
homicide team have been continuously engaged from 
May, 1974 to the present, in a complicated major 
prosecution. This case, referred to as the "Zebra" 
case, involved the street shooting of twenty persons, 
fourteen of whom died of their wounds. The legal research, 
pre-trial motions and trial preparation was an enormous 
task. Over 100 witnesses have testified for the prosecution 
in court in one of the longest trial ever held in this 
community. 

Statistics showing the work accomplished by this 
office in homicide and rape prosecutions are as follows: 



- 6 - 



HOMICIDE STATISTICS 

Total Cases Evaluated 121 

Municipal Court : 

Held to Answer 50 

Discharged _4 

Total Preliminary Hearings 54 

Certified to Juvenile Court 1 

Certified to Superior Court (1368 P.C. Insane) . 3 

Pending 4 

Justifiable or Excusable Homicide 10 

(No Complaint filed) 

Superior Court : 

Grand Jury Indictments 49 

Total Jury Trials 21 

Guilty Murder First Degree 9 
Special Circumstances Found 
True (Death Penalty Imposed -3) 

Guilty Murder Second Degree 7 

Guilty Voluntary Manslaughter 4 

Guilty Involuntary Manslaughter 1 

Total Guilty 21 

Total Not Guilty 

Total Non-Jury Trials (One Defendant) 

Guilty Murder Second Degree ... 1 

Total Pleas of Guilty (39 Defendants) . . 39 

Guilty Murder First Degree 2 

Guilty Murder Second Degree 12 

Guilty Voluntary Manslaughter 17 

Guilty Involuntary Manslaughter 7 

Guilty Felony Vehicle Manslaughter 1 
Pending Trial 27 

_ 7 _ 



Motion Set Aside Granted by Court 
and Dismissal under 1385 P.C. 

Total Judgments of : 'Not Guilty by 
Reason of Insanity" (1026 P.C.) 
Committed to State Hospital 

Total Judgments of "Mentally In- 
competent to Stand Trial" (1368 P.C.) 
Committed to State Hospital 



Sentences Imposed By Court : 

Special Circumstances (Death Penalty) 
State Prison 



Felony Probation with County Jail 
Sentence 



3 

44 

14 
* 



SEXUAL ASSAULT STATISTICS 

Charged with Felony 92 

Convicted - Felony 51 

Misdemeanor 8 

Acquitted 1 

Dismissed 8 

Witness not available 4 

Not held by Municipal Court 3 
Deceased 1 

Pending 24 

Sentences Imposed By Court : 

State Prison 15 

California Youth Authority ... 4 
Felony Probation with County Jail . . 20 
(Most defendants sentenced after 

State Prison referral and 

evaluation 1203.03 P.C.) 
State Hospital as Mentally Disordered 

Sex Offender 4 

Pending Sentence 16 

Total Jury Trials (January 1974 - July 1975) . . 16 

Guilty 12 

Acquitted 1 

Jury disagreed 3 

- 8 - 



FELONY VICE PROSECUTION 

The program initiated by this office in 1971 to better 
coordinate all vice enforcement activities with the San 
Francisco Police Department was continued through fiscal 
year 1974-1975. Special emphasis has been placed on the 
formulation of procedures to identify persons engaged in 
felony crimes related to prostitution, such as robbery, 
burglary, assault, theft, and fraud. In addition to these 
relatively new practices, the following procedures formerly 
implemented were continued: 

1. Emphasis on the prosecution of pimps; 

2. Cooperation with prosecutorial agencies throughout 

the State of California with reference to prostitution, 
pimping, bookmaking and pornography. 

Prosecution of Pimps - Since September, 1971, all cases 
involving suspected or known pimps and panderers are processed 
through the office of one assistant district attorney who, in 
addition to his other duties, is assigned to vice control. 
This procedure insures the uniform and expeditious handling 
of such cases. In the fiscal year 1974-1975, forty suspected 
pimps were convicted in the Superior Court of various felonies 
such as pimping, pandering, kidnapping, felonious assaults 
and rapes, and an additional forty- two known or suspected 
pimps were convicted of felony narcotic offenses. Four cases 
involving pimps were dismissed as the result of the disappear- 
ance of prostitute witnesses, and one case resulted in an 
acquittal by jury verdict. At the time of this writing, there 
are four cases awaiting Superior Court trial and nine cases 
awaiting preliminary hearing. Felony warrants are outstanding 
for eight fugitives. 

The total number of defendants convicted for pimping or 
pandering since the inception of the vice control plan is one 
hundred and eighty-five, with an additional forty-two known 
pimps convicted of narcotic offenses. Of all those convicted, 
a majority received State Prison sentences. 

Cooperation with Other Agencies - In fiscal year 1974-1975, 
there was a significant increase in the number of requests for 
assistance received from district attorneys in other parts of 
California, notably, Los Angeles, Orange, Fresno, San Joaquin, 
Sacramento and Alameda Counties. Many of these requests were 
for information concerning the effective procedures used by 
this office in prostitution and pimping prosecutions. Outside 
agencies have cooperated with this office, and in one case, 
such cooperation resulted in the conviction of a pimp who had 



- 9 - 



been recruiting prostitutes from Stockton, Merced, Bakersfield 
and Los Angeles to work as prostitutes in San Francisco. 

Education and Training - The office received numerous 
requests from various community groups to provide speakers 
on the subject of prostitution and pimping. TJhere^ror 
possible, these requests were filled. Newspaper, journalistic, 
television and radio inquiries also increased as the subject 
of prostitution became more topical. Every effort has been 
made to explain the relative responsibilities of the legisla- 
ture, the police and the district attorney in matters pertain- 
ing to vice as well as the deleterious effect of prostitution 
on the community, the interrelation of narcotic violations 
and crimes of violence with vice. 



- 10 - 



BUSINESS INVESTIGATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION SERVICE 

This second year of operation of the Business Investigation - 
Consumer Protection Service has seen it become the finest in the 
State through its skilled and vigorous handling of consumer 
matters. The Unit's primary function is consumer protection 
although it continues to assist in the field of business investi- 
gations. 

During the past fiscal year, our involvement in consumer 
protection has increased dramatically with the receipt and 
processing of 1,345 new complaints. During the same period, 
1,311 complaints were fully resolved resulting in the complain- 
ing consumers recovering goods, services, or money in a total 
value of approximately $49,715.60, all of which would have been 
lost to them without our efforts. Investigation of these matters 
is initiated either by this office or as a result of complaints 
from citizens or various private or governmental agencies. All 
investigations require some contact with the individual or 
business complained about in an attempt to resolve the matter. 
In some cases, a hearing is held at the Office of the District 
Attorney, at which time all interested parties are invited to 
participate. 

If the matter cannot be resolved in the above manner, court 
action is instituted in proper cases. Normally, this type of 
complaint lends itself either to criminal or civil resolution, 
and depending upon the facts, the most appropriate action is 
instituted. 

The civil actions filed usually involve the seeking of 
injunctive relief with a prayer for statutory penalties. Such 
civil action may result in obtaining a temporary restraining 
order or preliminary injunction which will require the defendant 
to immediately cease the alleged illegal activity. Such actions 
not only stop illegal practices, but also result in the City 
and County receiving any money collected as penalties. 

During the past year, 17 new injunctive actions were filed 
in Superior Court. During the same period, 19 final judgments 
in favor of the District Attorney resulted in awards of 
$140,701.68. Of this amount, $66,017.75 has already been 
collected and deposited with the Treasurer of the City and 
County of San Francisco. As in the previous year, all judgments 
in civil actions filed by the District Attorney have been favor- 
able. There are 19 civil actions pending. 

Following is a resume of some of the civil actions resolved 
during the past year: 



- 11 - 






",•,:>.!•'• 



People v. Matthew's T.V. & Stereo City, Inc . 

People v. Cal Hi Fi 

People v. Lombard's Lafayette 

People v. Pacific Stereo 

The above civil prosecutions resulted from investigations 
instituted by the District Attorney's Office in the stereo sales 
field. Deceptive pricing and false discount claims made by the 
firms sued were discovered in this investigation. Judgments 
were obtained against the defendants in which they were enjoined 
from such unlawful business practices and ordered to pay monetary 
penalties to the City and County of San Francisco. 



People v. Sherman Clay Co . 

People v. Cline Piano Co. 

The above two civil prosecutions resulted from an investi- 
gation initiated by the District Attorney's Office into the 
organ and piano sales business. False advertising by these firms 
and the non-availablility of advertised merchandise was the 
basis upon which the above legal action was taken. Judgment 
against the two firms were obtained in which they were enjoined 
from such unlawful practices and ordered to pay monetary pen- 
alties to the City and County of San Francisco. 



People v. Sakai Co . 

This civil action charged the defendant with unlawfully 
selling whale meat, a prosecution under the Endangered Species 
Act. The trial resulted in a judgment against the defendant 
in which it was enjoined from selling whale meat and was ordered 
to pay a monetary penalty to the City and County of San Francisco. 



People v. Marina Health Spa and Thomas DuPont 

This Company was charged with violations of the Health 
Studio Services Contract Act, which was enacted to safeguard 
the public against fraud, deceit, imposition and financial hard- 
ship in the field of health studio services. The Company was 
also charged with making oral and written false representations 
concerning its services. After a four week trial, the Court 



- 12 - 



rendered a Memorandum Opinion and Intended Decision in favor 
of the District Attorney's Office. Under its terms, the de- 
fendant is ordered to pay $107,000 in monetary penalties with 
one-half of that suspended upon the condition that the defen- 
dant comply with all the terms of the judgment. In addition, 
the defendant is to be enjoined from continuing its false ad- 
vertising and restrained from enforcing any of the terms and 
conditions of contracts entered into prior to the filing of 
the action. (Because this judgment does not become final 
until after July 1, 1975, the monetary penalties have not 
been included in the previously mentioned $140,701.68.) 

The Unit has also filed 121 criminal complaints during the 
past fiscal year. Most of the cases involve consumer oriented 
crimes, such as false advertising, contracting without a license, 
Health and Safety Code violations, and Business and Professions 
Code violations. In addition, the Unit has assisted in the in- 
vestigation and prosecution of business fraud cases, including 
embezzlement, theft by false pretenses, forgery and other re- 
lated criminal activity. 



- 13 - 



". •■ ' 



<-;j 



ELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT 



A substantially new area of law enforcement in which the 
District Attorney is now involved includes Election Campaign 
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Laws. The Political 
Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9), which became effective 
in January, 1975 served to complicate an already complex body 
of law that existed in the Waxman-Dymally Campaign Disclosure 
Act and the Moscone Conflict of Interest Act, each of which 
became effective in 1974. It was not until late June of 1975 
that the confusion was resolved by special legislation declar- 
ing the earlier laws to be inoperative. In addition, a local 
ordinance enacted in 1973, imposes strict limitations and 
requirements on candidates and committees during an election. 

Under State law, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco 
are made mandatory filing locations for many campaign statements, 
As a result, these counties are vested with jurisdiction to 
prosecute violations, many of which have little or no local 
connection. Furthermore, inasmuch as the enforcement agencies 
within these counties must be notified before any independent 
legal action can be initiated, the number of matters requiring 
investigation continues to increase. 

The impact of these laws has required the assignment of 
one trial attorney to full time specialization in this compli- 
cated and uncharted field. Liaison was established with the 
newly formed campaign law units in the Office of the Attorney 
General, and the offices of the District Attorney in Sacramento 
and Los Angeles. Research and investigation into a number of 
alleged violations were undertaken. These investigations were 
found to be complicated and time consuming, often calling for 
coordination with the above named agencies. 

As a result of the investigations conducted by this office, 
two civil actions* were filed seeking recovery of awards in 
excess of $55,000.00. 

One criminal action charging a defendant with fraudulent 
voting was filed. This accused was convicted by a jury. 



People of the State of California vs. Citizens United Against 
Proposition L, et al. 

People of the State of California vs. Transport Workers Union 
of America, et al. 



- 14 - 



EXTRADITION OF FUGITIVES 



When fugitives from this jurisdiction are apprehended 
in other States or Countries, this office is responsible for 
the legal process necessary to return them to this State for 
trial. Formal extradition requires the preparation of a 
complete legal file with documentation concerning the defen- 
dant and his alleged criminal conduct. The file is forwarded 
to the Governor of the State who must review the request and 
sign a warrant of extradition. This warrant must then be 
forwarded to the Governor of the asylum State for his action. 
The District Attorney handles all legal work connected with 
this function of the criminal law. 

During this fiscal year, 13 formal extraditions were 
processed. In many other cases fugitives were returned for 
trial after they waived formal extradition proceedings. 

The most interesting and difficult of the extradition 
cases was that involving Larry Pinkney, a man convicted by 
jury trial of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon. 
Pinkney fled to Paris, France and subsequently sought asylum 
in Stockholm, Sweden. After long negotiations with the Swedish 
authorities, including appeals to the Swedish Supreme Court, 
the Kingdom of Sweden ordered that Larry Pinkney be returned 
to the United States. Unfortunately, an official in Stockholm 
returned Pinkney' s passport to him in error and the fugitive 
was able to flee from Sweden. He is still being sought. 

In another international extradition, a fugitive accused 
of committing two murders in San Francisco was successfully 
extradited from Singapore. He has since been convicted and 
is in State Prison. 



- 15 - 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION 

This unit of the Office of the District Attorney has 
responsibility for enforcing the obligation of parents to 
support their children. Appropriate action is taken in public 
assistance cases referred to this office by the San Francisco 
Department of Social Services or by other jurisdictions, and, 
in non-welfare cases, when the custodial parent requests that 
enforcement efforts be made. The Division also, through its 
Bureau of Family Relations, investigates complaints that a 
crime has been committed by one member of a family against 
another. In addition, the Division initiates criminal action 
against those who have fraudulently received public assistance. 

New federal legislation was enacted in 1974 which 
provided for the return to this county of a portion of the 
funds collected from absent parents, as reimbursement for the 
costs incurred in the child support enforcement work of the 
Division. The amount of the reimbursement for salaries and 
overhead expenses during the fiscal year is $72,063.00. 
Additional reimbursements from the California Support Enforcement 
Incentive Fund for the enforcement work done during the fiscal 
year are anticipated. In recognition of the importance of the 
work and the availability of reimbursement for the cost of 
performing it, additional personnel have been authorized for 
the Division. The volume of work accomplished by the Division 
is expected to rise accordingly in the coming fiscal year. 

Activities directed toward the securing of child support 
during the fiscal year may be summarized as follows: 

Cases opened and investigated ..... 3,362 

Hearings and interviews of parties conducted 999 

Civil non-support actions filed and prosecuted .... 537 

Criminal non-support actions filed and prosecuted ... 63 

The above listed activities produced the following results: 

Voluntary payment agreements secured from the 

absent parent 95 

Civil support orders secured .•••• 435 

Wage assignments ordered ••••• 116 

Criminal judgments secured 43 

Child support collections $1,286,427.00 

Activities with regard to cases of possible welfare fraud 
referred to this unit during the fiscal year may be summarized 
as follows: 



- 16 - 






, < 



Total number of cases referred 375 

Cases not prosecuted because restitution secured 

or for other reasons ......... 228 

Arrest warrants issued .. 147 

In the cases in which arrest warrants were issued, the 
following results were produced: 

Defendants brought before the court .... 130 

Bench warrants issued for subsequent non-appearance . 6 
Dismissals entered, usually because responsibility was 

assumed by a co-defendant • 12 

Convictions 90 

Acquittals 2 

A subdivision of the Domestic Relations Division, the 
Bureau of Family Relations, investigates complaints of an 
allegedly criminal nature arising between family members or 
other socially related persons. In the course of the investi- 
gations, the participants in the incidents are interviewed and 
police reports are reviewed. Upon completion of the investi- 
gations, prosecutions are commenced in appropriate cases, while 
in other cases the parties are referred to other agencies for 
family counseling or civil legal assistance. The following 
is a summary of such complaints processed during the fiscal year : 

Complaints 

Battery ~ 820" 

Threats of bodily harm 418 

Drinking , . • . 245 

Disturbing the peace 201 

Annoying telephone calls ••••••••• 151 

Malicious mischief ....... c ... . 149 

Mental illness 102 

Narcotics . . . . 53 

Denial of child visiting rights ..... 52 

Felonious wife-beating « 12 

Miscellaneous other e » 361 

TOTAL '2,564 



- 17 - 



' 



BAIL BOND COLLECTIONS 
July 1, 1974 through June 30 , 1975 

As a collateral aspect of criminal prosecution work, 
the Office of the District Attorney secures civil judgments 
against insurance companies which have issued bail bonds 
guaranteeing the appearance in court of criminal defendants 
who subsequently failed to appear. During the fiscal year, 
twenty-one such civil judgments were secured. Collections 
on these judgments, and on others previously secured, may 
be summarized as follows: 

Collected on judgments $99,500 
Interest collected 394 

Total $ 99,894 

Cases in which collection had not yet been made on 
judgments issued prior to June 30, 1975 fell into the 
following categories: 

Appeals and motions by insurance 

companies pending $21,500 

Insurance company in liquidation 51,625 

Collections in normal year-end 

process 5,000 

Total $75fTZ5' 



- 18 - 



' . 



)•:. ■ " 



V 



)i \ '..'■ 



■ 






r >«'J}* •' ' • ''• 



JUVENILE DIVISION 

■ i — ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ — — ■ — ■■ ■ ii ■ 

Section 681 of the Welfare and Institutions Code provides 
that the District Attorney, at the request of the Juvenile 
Court, shall furnish representation for the Juvenile Court 
system where a minor is accused of an unlawful act of a 
criminal nature. Attorneys in the Juvenile Division of the 
San Francisco District Attorney's Office present evidence in 
court in child abuse cases, and in cases where a minor is 
accused of a criminal act. The accusations to be proved are 
set out in petitions filed by the probation officer under 
Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. 

During the fiscal year from July 1, 1974 through June 30, 
1975, three attorneys were assigned to this unit in order to 
present cases before one Superior Court Judge and three Superior 
Court Referees at Juvenile Court. 

One of these attorneys has been active in the San Fran- 
cisco Child Abuse Council which is comprised of doctors of 
medicine, psychiatrists, social workers, probation officers 
and lay people; all of whom are interested in taking prompt 
and decisive legal action to prevent recurrent child abuse. 
The attorney from the Juvenile Division so serving has been 
elected President of this group. 

The Welfare and Institutions Code provides that a juvenile 
probation officer is responsible for filing the petition which 
charges a juvenile with any offense involving criminal conduct. 

In cases where a juvenile is alleged by the police to 
have committed a felony offense, the police assign the case 
for further investigation to a police inspector in one of their 
bureaus. Where a juvenile is in custody, the law requires 
that he be taken before the court within one court day to deter- 
mine whether he shall be detained in custody. The law further 
provides that he may require a confrontation in court with wit- 
nesses no later than the following court day. Before filing a 
petition, the juvenile probation officer reviews the evidence 
available with one of the assistant district attorneys. The 
attorney evaluates the evidence available and advises the juve- 
nile probation officer if there is sufficient legal evidence to 
warrant charging a criminal offense. The allegations in the 
petition must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at the court 
hearing. 

If, in the opinion of the District Attorney, there is in- 
sufficient legal evidence to warrant the probation officer 
filing such a petition, other remedies are available under the 
juvenile court law to properly care for the juvenile. 



- 19 - 



In the first half of the fiscal year, 491 petitions were 
received; in the second half of this year, 755 petitions, or 
61% of the total were received. In the first half of the fiscal 
year, 583 appearances at hearings were required; in the second 
half of this year, 759 appearances were required. The increase 
in juvenile crime, with the consequent increase in work load 
on the District Attorney's Office is obvious. The crimes of 
burglary, robbery and theft from the person comprise 73% of the 
major juvenile criminal acts occurring in San Francisco. 

Of the 1,342 contested matters in which the Juvenile 
Division attorneys appeared in court, 92.4% of the petitions 
were sustained in court. 

The District Attorney, by law, is not a party to the final 
disposition or sentence of the juvenile unless specially in- 
vited by the court to make his views known through the probation 
officer's social report. 

During the 1974-1975 fiscal year, the San Francisco Juve- 
nile Court (and its referees) ordered the following dispositions 
of juveniles upon whom petitions had been sustained: 

A. Ward, Committed to California 

Youth Authority 127 

B. Ward, With Formal Supervision, Committed 
to Log Cabin Ranch School, Hidden Valley 

Ranch School, or Girls ' Center 347 

C. Ward, Placed Outside of Home 144 

D. Formal Supervision at Home or Relative's 

Home 1006 

Major Felony Cases Presented in Juvenile Court 

Homicides 

Murder (187 P.C.) Petition Sustained 2 

Murder (187 P.C.) Certified to be Tried 

as Adults 2 

Murder (187 P.C.) Extradition after hearing.... 1 

Manslaughter (192 P.C.) Petition Sustained..... 1 

TOTAL 6 



- 20 - 



Other Crimes of Violence 

Robbery (211 P. C.) 122 

Grand Theft From the Person (487 P.C.) 109 

Felonious Assaults (245a P.C.) 38 

Juveniles Armed with Concealed Weapon 

(12021.5 P.C.) 20 

Rape (261 P.C.) 4 

Arson (449a P.C.) . 4 

Kidnaping (207 P.C.) 1 

TOTAL 298 



Crimes Against Property 

Burglary (459 P.C.) 144 

Receiving Stolen Property (496 P.C.) 64 

TOTAL 208 



- 21 - 



MUNICIPAL COURT DIVISION 



The Municipal Court Division is comprised of Assistant 
District Attorneys whose duties involve the issuance of arrest 
and search warrants, the screening of charges placed against 
arrested persons, the presentation of evidence at felony 
preliminary hearings and the prosecution of misdemeanor cases 
in the Municipal Court. 

Municipal Court attorneys also prepare complaints, handle 
arraignment calendars, prepare and argue pretrial motions to 
suppress evidence; motions to revoke or modify probation; and 
motions for discovery. These attorneys also conduct complaint 
hearings in many minor misdemeanor cases in order to screen 
the issuance of warrants. All parties concerned are permitted 
to participate in these hearings in an attempt to resolve the 
complaint. The need to have attorneys in court throughout 
each day, and the limited staff available has to some degree 
curtailed this activity. 

Diversion 

During the fiscal year, 616 defendants were diverted by 
the Municipal Court in connection with both felony and 
misdemeanor offenses involving the possession of drugs and 
narcotics. During the same period, 423 persons successfully 
completed the diversion program on which they had previously 
been placed, and the charges against them were dismissed by 
the Court. Of those previously placed on diversion program, 
charges against 97 persons were reinstated as a result of 
either voluntary or involuntary termination of their 
diversionary status. These dispositions are effected under 
the provision of Section 1000 of the California Penal Code. 

Diversion Statistics 

Charge Number Diverted 

Possession of Marijuana 408 

Possession of Heroin, Cocaine or Opium ..... 77 
Possession of Dangerous Drugs 131 

Total 616 



During the year, attorneys in this Division handled 724 
complaint hearings in the office, prepared 930 arrest 
warrants and 171 search warrants. Additionally, over 10,200 
complaints were prepared and filed in court charging persons 



- 22 - 



who had been arrested on minor traffic violations or disorderly 
conduct. The courts in which these cases appear are not 
staffed by Assistant District Attorneys, so these complaints 
are not included in other statistics listed. 

Traffic Court 

In the Municipal Court Traffic Department which handles 
serious traffic violations, a total of 10,997 charges were 
filed against 6,500 defendants. An Assistant District Attorney 
is assigned to this court. Of the total charges, 3,6 31 were 
for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; 1,241 of 
the total charges were the subject of demands for jury trial. 
Guilty pleas were entered to 6,289 of the charges; the balance 
of the charges were tried before the court, or dismissed by 
the court where pleas of guilty were accepted to other charges; 
or where the court permitted the offender to voluntarily 
attend traffic school. Motions to revoke probation were filed 
against 62 defendants in the traffic department. 

General Misdemeanor Court 

During the fiscal year, attorneys assigned to the 
Municipal Court Master Calendar departments processed all 
non-traffic misdemeanor filings, arraignments, pretrial 
motions, pretrial conferences, motions to suppress evidence, 
and motions to revoke probation. In addition, all cases 
involving traffic violations where jury trials were demanded 
were transferred to this department. 

Attorneys assigned to these courts processed approximately 
17,500 defendants charged with approximately 25,900 misde- 
meanor charges. Of the 25,900 charges appearing on these 
calendars, some 3,525 charges were not included in the com- 
plaints actually filed because investigation proved them to 
be unfounded, or not supported by sufficient evidence. Dis- 
missals often occur where the police have arrested and booked 
a person on duplicate or overlapping charges; or where 
available witnesses are unable or unwilling to testify to the 
facts noted in the police report. 

During the year, 301 defendants proceeded to jury trial 
on misdemeanor charges. Of that total, 198 were convicted, 
55 were acquitted, and jury disagreements resulted as to 48 
defendants. 

At the end of the fiscal year, there were 1,048 cases 
involving 1,272 defendants who were charged with 1,912 
offenses pending in the Municipal Court Master Jury Calendar 
Department . 



- 23 - 



Felony Cases in Municipal Court 

During the fiscal year, 10,906 persons were arrested in 
San Francisco and booked by the arresting officers on felony 
charges. (This number is in addition to those arrested on 
warrants.) 

"No warrant" felony arrests are made by officers as a 
result of their observations or investigations which provide 
them with reasonable and probable cause to believe that a 
felony has been committed. Following a "no warrant" felony 
arrest, the case is investigated by the assigned Inspector 
from the Police Department, who thereafter presents the facts 
to an experienced senior Assistant District Attorney. All 
evidence is then discussed and evaluated so that proper charges 
can be filed. 

During this fiscal year, as a result of such evaluation 
conferences, 5,359 persons were charged with felony offenses; 
2,353 were charged with misdemeanor violations; and 3,154 
persons were released without charge within the 48 hours al- 
lowed by law for their detention. Many of these arrests in- 
volved crimes which required complicated investigations which 
the police could not complete in such a short time. Many of 
these persons were subsequently arrested on warrants issued 
after the investigation was completed. Other releases resulted 
from the failure of witnesses or victims to identify those ar- 
rested; the inability to identify property as stolen; the de- 
termination by the crime laboratory that suspected narcotics 
or drugs were in fact not contraband; and the conclusion that 
evidence had been illegally seized and could not be used in 
evidence. In some cases, there was insufficient evidence of 
any kind upon which to proceed. 

In those cases where defendants were under eighteen years 
of age, they were certified to Juvenile Court. In some cases, 
suspects were wanted for prosecution on more serious crimes 
in other jurisdictions, and so local charges were not filed. 

After preliminary hearings were held in Court to show 
probable cause, 1,525 cases involving 1,82$ defendants were 
held to answer for trial in Superior Court. A total of 265 
defendants entered pleas of guilty to felony charges in the 
lftinicipal Court and were certified to Superior Court for 
sentence. 

In approximately 1,725 cases, defendants entered guilty 
pleas to misdemeanor charges and were sentenced in the Municipal 
Court. In approximately 692 cases, the charges were reduced by 
the Court after hearing testimony at the preliminary hearing, 
or by the District Attorney as a result of the continuing in- 
vestigation. 

- 24 - 



In approximately 239 cases, the charges were dismissed 
by the Municipal Court Judge after evidence was presented at 
a preliminary hearing. In such cases the court was not 
satisfied that there was sufficient credible evidence to bind 
the defendant over for trial, or the court ruled that the 
only evidence available to prove the charges had been obtained 
in violation of the exclusionary rule and could not be re- 
ceived in evidence. 

(It should be noted that due to the large number of 
arrests , charges and court appearances which are involved in 
the court process at the Municipal Court level, and due to 
the shortage of personnel assigned this office, it has been 
impossible to maintain continuous accurate statistics.) 



- 25 - 



SUPERIOR COURT APPEALS 



As a result of the continuous changes in procedural law, 
and the fact that appeals are free and are encouraged by the 
courts, a large percentage of convictions are appealed. The 
preparation of briefs and oral argument to the appellate 
court are, by law, the responsibility of the Attorney General. 
Members of the trial staff of this office, however, often con- 
sult with and assist in the preparation of appeals. 

During the fiscal year, a total of 115 felony matters 
were appealed. Of these, 107 appeals were held to have no 
merit while only 8 resulted in reversal of convictions. These 
cases were returned to Superior Court for retrial. Most of 
the reversals were the result of changes in the interpretation 
of laws relating to the admissibility of evidence or to 
improper jury instructions by the Court. 

The fact that almost every conviction obtained by this 
office is upheld by the Court of Appeals is a tribute to the 
professional competence of the trial attorneys who carefully 
prepare, research and present the evidence in court. 



- 26 - 



MUNICIPAL COURT 
APPELLATE DIVISION 

The Appellate Division of the District Attorney's Office 
handles appeals from misdemeanor convictions, motions to 
suppress and demurrers. These appeals are heard in the Appel- 
late Department of the Superior Court and may be filed either 
by the defendant or by the People in an appropriate case. One 
Assistant District Attorney is assigned to the Appellate Divi- 
sion and is responsible for the preparation and filing of 
motions, affidavits, legal briefs and various other forms of 
pleadings relating to such appeals. Each Friday the three- 
judge Appellate Panel of the Superior Court convenes at City 
Hall for oral argument, at which time the Appellate attorney 
argues all criminal cases appearing on the calendar. 

Additionally, the attorney assigned to the appellate 
division prepares pleadings and appears in the trial court 
to argue demurrers, motions to suppress and various other 
pretrial motions in cases pending trial. On some occasions 
he is required to argue petitions for writs of habeas corpus 
or other relief in Superior Court. There were 949 defendants 
on whom motions to suppress were heard during this past fiscal 
year, which were briefed and argued by this attorney. 

Appeals filed by convicted defendants 96 

Conviction Affirmed * . . 43 

Conviction Reversed « . . * 3 

Appeals pending « * ♦ * 23 

(Includes cases pending 
at start of fiscal year) 

Appeals dismissed **...* 45 

(Appeals not perfected by 
Appellant) 

Appeals filed by People » 6 

Municipal Court Reversed*. ♦. 2 
Municipal Court Affirmed.... 2 
Pending 2 



- 27 - 






■:w* :u- 



' ' f 



'"••.! 



BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 



The Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Division, is 
staffed by investigators under the supervision of a Chief 
Investigator and one Senior Investigator. All are peace 
officers assigned to assist in the preparation of cases 
for trial. 

Local law enforcement procedures in the police depart- 
ment are such that very little investigation is conducted 
where misdemeanor arrests are made. The Inspectors Bureau 
of the police department allocates its resources to the 
investigation of felonies. The District Attorney investi- 
gators are required to make all investigations in the 
misdemeanor cases and such supplemental investigations as 
are necessary in felony cases awaiting trial. 

Investigators in the Criminal Division conduct field 
investigations, prepare diagrams and photographs, locate 
and interview witnesses, serve subpoenas, and when necessary, 
testify in court. 

Division investigators handle election law and conflict 
of interest investigations, rehabilitation and pardon corres- 
pondence, and demands for speedy trial made by persons 
incarcerated in other jurisdictions who have charges 
pending here. 

The complaint desk of the District Attorney's office 
is regularly staffed by investigators who receive and 
process approximately 10,000 reports, complaints, and 
inquiries from citizens each year. 

CASE WORK STATISTICS 



Preliminary investigations on court cases 2963 

Total cases for trial preparation 439 

Superior Court 71 

Municipal Court . . . .368 

Photography necessary for case preparation 38- 

Cases in which charts, diagrams or scale 

drawings were prepared .............. 17 ' 

Subpoenas served 373 

Miscellaneous (criminal records checked; tape re- 
cordings transcribed, transporting witnesses, 
demands for trial, rehabilitation and pardon). . 1587 

Statistics not included for the investigation staff 
which is regularly assigned to work in the Consumer Fraud Unit, 
or the Reciprocal Support and Aid to Families with Dependent 
Children section. 

- 28 - 



' • • . 



tiiA 



PSYCHIATRIC DIVISION 



The main functions of this Division are: 

A. Investigation of alleged mentally disordered 
and intemperate persons, and those addicted 
to narcotics or habit-forming drugs who are 
dangerous to themselves or others, or gravely 
disabled because of their condition. 

B. To represent the City and County at judicial 
proceedings under provisions of the Welfare 
and Institutions Code which provides for 
conservatorships for certain persons not able 
to care for themselves. 

C. To interview and advise persons requesting 
information on psychiatric facilities and 
legal procedures relating to the problems 

of mental illness, alcoholism or drug addic- 
tion. 

Complaints from individuals or referrals from other 
agencies which involve mental illness, alcoholism or drugs 
are investigated by a psychologist on the staff of this 
office. Where there is reason to believe that a person 
suffers from a mental disorder and that such illness is 
dangerous or gravely disabling, and no relatives are will- 
ing to assume the responsibility, the District Attorney 
must take appropriate legal action to insure that the mentally 
ill person is hospitalized. At such judicial proceedings, 
evidence that the person is a danger to himself or to others, 
or is gravely disabled as a result of mental disorder, is 
presented by the District Attorney either at a jury trial, 
or in response to writs of habeas corpus, on in conservator- 
ship hearings. 

Summary of cases: 

Jury Trials 1 

Patient Accepted Voluntary Hospitalization. . 1 
Write of Habeas Corpus, Filed by Patient... 25 

Denied 11 

Granted 8 

Withdrawn 6 

Investigations 257 



- 29 



-■ . . 



• ,.; ,..-•;:.■; ...... . . . •';■ • ■ 



- 



Mental Illness 213 

Narcotics and Drugs 35 

Intemperance 9 

The Psychiatric Division is also responsible for the 
investigation of some persons charged in criminal cases where 
a psychiatric background is shown. Defendants in misdemeanor 
criminal cases who, because of their mental condition, have 
been diverted from the normal channels of criminal justice 
to hospitals or local psychiatric facilities require detailed 
follow-up investigations to insure proper disposition of the 
criminal cases. 



- 30 - 



SF 

47S-77 



ANNUAL REPORT TO MAYOR 



DISTRICT ATTORNEY 




SAN FRANCISCO 






Submitted by 



JOSEPH FREITAS, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY 



July 1, 1975 - June 30, 1977 



ANNUAL REPORT 

(Fiscal Years ns-'TS and '76— - f 77) 

Table of contents 

Introduction 2 

Preface 6 

Duties and Organization 7 
Major Divisions 

Administrative Division 9 

Criminal Division 11 

Superior Court Section 11 

Municipal Court Section 16 

Special Prosecutions Unit 19 

Career Criminal Prosecution Unit 20 

Juvenile Court Section 22 

Investigation 24 

Victim/Witness Assistance Program 25 

Family Support Bureau 27 

Consumer Fraud Unit 32 

Additional Major Functions 

Elections Code Violations 37 

A stronger Gun Policy 39 

Psychiatric Court 40 

Training 43 

Arbitration as an Alternative 45 

Welfare Fraud 46 

Bail Bond Collections 47 



I 



INTRODUCTION 

This report covers the last six months of the prior 
administration and the first eighteen months of my 
administration (July 1, 1975 to June 30, 1977). It has been a 
period of tremendous change: our staff has increased from 117 
to 220 permanent positions; the Family Support Bureau was 
established as a separate functioning entity; a highly 
successful Consumer Fraud Unit was started; three major grants 
were funded (Victim/Witness Assistance, Career Criminal 
Prosecution and Corruption Control); and the Criminal Division 
was reorganized to include vertical, or specialty team 
representation for felony prosecutions. 

The target of this increased capability has been stronger 
prosecution of violent and serious crime. The results to date 
are dramatic and encouraging. The graph on the following page 
shows the increase in the number of persons given state prison 
sentences. While felony arrests over the period have remained 
relatively constant, the number of persons sentenced to state 
prison has more than doubled . We take great satisfaction in 
seeing such an increase in response to our increased staffing 
and tougher prosecution policies. 



CASES RECEIVING STATE PRISON SENTENC] 



800 


















\ 




752 


700 




630 






600 








500 




485 
















400 




397 




393 


















349 












300 








200 


























100 


















i 
















1T| 




m no 















Much work remains. We need to make better use of 
information systems in order to manage this growing and complex 
office. We also need to work for better ways to handle the 
tremendous volume of misdemeanor cases. Misdemeanor crimes are 
serious; they are of the type that, because of their volume, 
slowly erode the City's quality of life. Yet, by their numbers 
they tax our ability and the court's ability to dispense 
justice. Defendants' rights are no less because they are 
charged with lesser crimes; the same procedural due process 
must be applied to misdemeanors as felonies. Trials are 
costly, yet without the ability to take misdemeanors to trial, 
the justice process disintegrates into the crudest form of 
bargaining. Our biggest challenge over the next several years 



will be to convince a financially beleaguered city government 
to properly staff misdemeanor prosecutions. 

In March, 1976, I reorganized the Consumer Fraud/White 
Collar Crime Unit in fulfillment of my pledge to the People of 
San Francisco. That unit now consists of eight attorneys, six 
investigators, and support staff. In less than one year of 
operation, they have more than doubled the number of complaints 
received, and increased the fines, penalties and costs awarded 
to the City treasury by more than five timesl In addition, the 
unit has been responsible for returning more than $340,000.00 
to the people of San Francisco through restitution. 

Also in the Spring of 1976, I established a Special 
Prosecutions Unit to investigate and prosecute sophisticated, 
systematic and organized criminal activity with special 
emphasis on corruption in government. This unit will be 
augmented by an LEAA grant which will commence in August, 
1977. The unit's cases have included police corruption, 
embezzlement by government officials, certain political 
campaign reporting violations, and various extortion schemes. 

The report that follows describes with facts and figures 
this office's operation over the two year period. What it 
cannot convey is the feeling of our work. The District 
Attorney's Office is a hectic-paced but exciting organization 
with which to be associated. It consists of dedicated 
professionals and non-professionals trying to make this 
naturally beautiful city a better place to live. I am pleased 



oe part 



to 6e part of this effort and to present this record of our 
activity and progress during the first 18 months of my 
administration to the People of San Francisco. 




nd County of San Francisco 



V. ' 






V 



•1, '■'■ 



I - 



PREFACE 

This annual report covers two fiscal years. Originally, 
it was the intention of the District Attorney's Office to 
report on its activities on a calendar year basis. Such a 
report would have permitted a comparability with the reporting 
system of the police department and the Bureau of Criminal 
Statistics of the California Department of Justice, both of 
which report on a claendar year basis. Additionally, such a 
reporting system would provide a sound basis for San 
Francisco's newly initiated program output budgeting. 

Such a calendar year reporting system is not yet feasible 
because of various unanticipated delays in new data collection 
system implementation. No systematic, comprehensive management 
information is now being retrieved from the existing Court 
Management System (CMS) . In large part this is because 
programming has not been done to retrieve aggregate case 
information now in the system, which is used primarily for 
calendar and case inquiry information. Similarly, in the 
course of its computerization, manual collection of such data 
has not been reliably kept. The result has been that San 
Francisco's already inadequate criminal justice data collection 
system has become even more chaotic in the period 1975 through 
1977. Aggregate case data by the courts has been kept 
regularly on a fiscal year basis; it is used whenever available 
in this report. 






; --.- 



Duties of the District Attorney 

The District Attorney is charged with the responsibility 
of prosecuting public offenses committed within the boundaries 
of the City and County of San Francisco. 

Prosecution by the District Attorney's Office is not 
limited to the presentation of evidence in a court of law. The 
overall prosecution of a criminal case includes criminal 
investigation, grand jury inquiries, conferring on legislation 
and drafting new legislation, advising law enforcement officers 
and involvement in other criminal proceedings such as search 
warrants, arraignments, preliminary hearings, pretrial motions 
(demurrers, motions to suppress, etc.) pretrail conferences, 
. sentencing recommendations, and motions to revoke grants of 
i probation. 

Additionally, the District Attorney has duties in mental 
health commitments, consumer protection, family support 
(collection of civil judgments ordering an absent spouse to pay 
support for his children/family) , juvenile prosecutions, and 
election and campaign law enforcement. 

In order to execute his responsibilities in an effective 
and efficient manner, the District Attorney's Office is divided 
into seven major divisions. The largest division by far is 
Criminal Prosecutions which in turn is broken down into four 
major sections. This organization is depicted graphically on 
the following page, and each division and major section is 



reported on separately in the material that follows. 

Several of the District Attorney's most important duties 
do not require sufficient staff to warrant a separate division 
and thus do not show on the organization chart. These 
functions are assigned to one or more deputies in addition to 
their regular workload. These functions are also discussed 
separately following the divisional material. 





</) 



O 
•H 
4-» 

CO 

hO 

4J 

(0 
0) 
> 



rH 




0) 




P< 




•H 




O 


-»j 




l d 


o 


a: 


o 




ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION 

The Administrative Division plans, organizes, and directs 
administrative activities of the District Atatorney's Office in 
all phases of its operations. It coordinates and provides all 
support services not directly related to case investigation, 
preparation and prosecution. Members of the administrative 
staff meet, consult and correspond with department 
representatives, various outside agencies, the general public 
and the news media. The Administrative Division is responsible 
for the following duties: 

Budget preparation, payroll, purchasing, accounting, 
maintenance of personnel and Civil Service records, 
inventory control, providing travel and hotel/motel 
accomodations for witnesses, mimeographing and 
reproduction, affirmative action coordination, personnel 
evaluation and supervision, interdepartmental relations, 
grant application and administration, analysis of pending 
legislation, maintenance of a law library, coordinating 
administrative and professional staff efforts relative to 
departmental operations, employment and assignment of 
personnnel and other specialized activities unique to and 
affecting the District Attorney's Office. 

The Administrative Division consists of 28 people 
assigned to central administration, 16 people assigned directly 
to other organizational units and 5 people hired under grants 
to handle grant administration. 

The Administrative Division processes all filings, 
subpoenas, case files and motions for 39,000 criminal filings 
and all non-criminal filings; keeps personnel and pay records 
for the office's 220 ( + ) employees; and administers a budget of 
more than $3. 3mm. 

9 



In order to meet the increasing administrative demands of 
the office, a word processing system has been installed and the 
computerized Court Management System is being developed for use 
by the office. 



10 



CRIMINAL DIVISION 

The largest section of the District Attorney's Office is 
the criminal division, which includes all attorneys not 
assigned to the Family Support Bureau, Consumer Fraud/White 
Collar Crime Unit, or to Special Prosecutions. 
Superior Court Section 

In January 1976, the Superior Court Section was 
reorganized into several felony teams, each of which was 
assigned a specific area of concentration. Team members 
generally are given responsibility for handling a case from its 
charging to its ultimate disposition. Such a policy of case 
assignment is referred to as vertical representation. It is 
designed to improve: individual accountability for case 
disposition, acuracy of initial charges, case continuity, 
technical competence, and investigative liaison with police 
inspectors. 

In combination with the policy of no plea bargaining in 
violent or fear inducing (e.g. burglary) felony cases, it has 
produced a more effective and zealous advocacy which has 
resulted in a substantially increased rate of commitments of 
felons to State Prison. 

Comparative statistics for fiscal years 1975-76 and 
1976-77 show a number of significant changes in office 
performance. Foremost among them is the +60% increase in State 
Prison commitments in the most recent fiscal year. In fiscal 



11 



1975-76, 393 persons were sentenced to State Prison; in 
1976-77, 630 were sentenced. This dramatic increase occurred 
in a year in which the number of adult felony arrests remained 
constant. The increase is significant in that the number of 
persons originally charged with felony offenses in Municipal 
Court decreased by 12%, due to changed charging practices. The 
reduction reflects an attempt to file charges at the most 
appropriate level and thus avoid overcharging. 

A comparison of the first full fiscal year (1976-77) of 
the present administration with the last full fiscal year 
(1974-75) of its predecessor clearly shows that the 
administrative reorganization has had an effect in the way 
cases have been processed. Felony arrests have decreased by 7% 
while the initiation of felony charges has decreased by 24%. 
Yet the number of defendants "held to answer" felony criminal 
charges in Superior Court has increased by 11%. This 
commitment to strong, diligent prosecution resulted in 33% more 
defendants pleading guilty and a 111% increase in jury 
convictions. Serious sentences (State Prison, CRC, and CYA) 
have increased 66%. Most significantly, the number of State 
Prison commitments increased by 80% in 1976-77 over 1974-75, 
even though felony arrests decreased by 7%. Clearly, the 
initiation of the felony team system and no plea bargaining 
policy in violent and fear inducing felony cases have resulted 
in changed odds for criminal defendants. Of particular 
significance is the number of prison commitments as a 



12 



percentage of felony arrests, 6.3%, in 1976-77. This is three 
times the Statewide percentage of 2.3%. 



13 



4 






























H co 






























o 2 


to 


CM 


CO 


00 


o 


m 


•<t 


cn 


m 


CM 


vO 


St 


r^ 


vO 


rM 


c- 


m 


VO 


CM 


m 






m 


r-l 






rH 


CM 


IO 


SO 


























U CO 






























M 






























Q 






























{X CO 






























§3 


r- 


O 


VO 


vC 


iH 


vC 


m 


m 


c 


in 


o 


m 


VC 


<T 


CM 


r^ 


CM 


CM 


CM 


rH 




«H 


rH 


CM 


rH 


rH 




rH 


R M 


H 


rH 


























Pi 






























"Sfc H 






























b 


vO 


r-« 


cc 


CO 


CO 


<T 


cn 


00 


vO 


cn 


VO 


c 


m 


<f 


O .J 


vO 


.h 


CO 


C 


CM 


<f 


rH 


rH 


cn 


rH 


'-i 


rH 


h* 


CM 


W M 


r^ 


on 


rH 


CM 


H 


rH 






cn 


in 








rH 


r-I r3 


f-i 


r-< 


























p- G 






























£) H 


ON 


en 


lA 


en 


rH 


CM 


r^ 


rH 


vO 


en 


CM 


rH 


rH 


O 


fN. 


vc 


0> 


o> 


ON 


CJN 






00 


m 






VO 


CO 


o < 


© 


ON 














r-t 


CM 










t_> »-) 


r-t 


















i 


. . ■ ■ , 








o 


ON 


<t 


en 


r>» 


cn 


o 


C 


c 


ON 


vr 


c 


O 


vC 


r-\ 


p; 


iH 


CM 


rH 


rH 










vO 


00 








r-K 


u 


CM 


CM 


























< 


vC 


vO 


CM 


C 


cn 


<f 


cm 


c 


cc. 


c 


CM 


C 


m 


•* 


& 


vO 


i*- 


cm 


cn 










iH 


cn 










M» 






























P CO 


r^ 


in 


o> 


<t 


ON 


rH 


<r 


o 


CM 


cn 


CM 


-4 


© 


rH 


< M 


CT 


00 


r^ 


00 


cn 


<t 




cn 


r— 


CM 


CM 


CM 


rH 


rH 


H Pi 


ro 


-3- 
















rH 










to a- 






























CM 






























CO 






























U, U3 


on 


tn 


c 


m 


OV 


r«« 


in 


vC 


rH 


m 


CO 


ON 


m 


in 


C CO 


00 


t>» 


00 


cr 


ON 


-* 


CM 


cn 


-<* 


m 


<* 


cn 


rH 


vO 


.-5 


VO 


00 


CM 


CO 


r-l 


CM 






<* 


vD 






rH 


r-\ 


cm 


CM 




























m 


vC 


m 


vO 


m 


vd 


m 


vO 


m 


vO 


in 


vC 


m 


vO 




r^ 


t-- 


r-. 


r»« 


r^. 


r^ 


r- 


r-. 


n» 


r^ 


r« 


r^. 


t^ 


r^ 




ON 


On 


Ov 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 


o- 


ON 


ON 


On 


on 


ON 


o 




r-t 


rH 


rH 


rH 


iH 


iH 


rH 


iH 


r-l 


rH 


r-i 


rH 


rH 


tH 


rH 






























lu 




























4-1 


o 




























14-1 


5 




09 

OJ 




& 












ro 




>-. 




cu 






00 


rH 


<D 


m 




r-l 




ON 


rH 


r-« 


0) 


r-. 


•u 






p 


rH 


43 


<t 




VO 


01 


in 


CO 


oo 


•o 


00 


Q 




r-t 


CO 


CM 


rO 


CN 


» 


CM 


a 


<* 


M 


rH 


M 


<r 


CO 




3 




UK 


o 
Pi 

■ 


can 


3 

— _ 


1010 


co 


COO 


3 

CO 


can 


3 


an 


U 



a) 






o 




>, 


c 




4J 


CD 




•H 


«J 




rH 


c 




•H 


01 




JO 


to 




CO 

c 


CO 




•H 


rC 




U-l 


u 




o • 


•H 




tn 


r£ 




C r4 


3 




O OJ 

in tj 


C 




CO C! 


o 




OJ a> 


OJ 




VtH 


6C 




>, o 


P 




£> 


CO 




X 


4= 




)-, 0) 


o 




OJ to 


4-1 




*J TJ 


(0 


• 


•H OJ 


OJ 


*o 


OJ >■< 


r- 


OJ 


v-^ a) 


OO 


4-1 


*J 


•H 


ri 


rH J-i 


J= 


a 


CO O 




o 


4-> CO 


01 


a 


•H «H 


X 




CUT3 


4-i 


a 


CO 




0J 


o >. 


r»l 


OJ 


^ rH 


iH 


J3 


iH 


c 




OJ (0 


O 


cn 


4J 4-1 




CO 


CO C 


n • 


x. 


4-J OJ 


4J T3 




co E 


C OJ 


OJ 




CO 4J 


CO 


OJ r-l 


•X3 4J 


cO 


X O 


C «H 


u 


4-1 


qj e 




M 


IM O 


05 


O ^--v 


01 


•• 


4-1 >, 


*a oj 


4J 


4J 


iw 


c 


CO «H 


ai a) 


CO 


4-> ti 


•H & 


•V 


C CO 


00 


c 


oj cn 


C 05 


OJ 


e c 


•H OJ 


U-i 


4J ^H 


tn oo 


(U 


•H 


u 


'O 


C *♦"» 


CO rfl 




E O 


rC 


X 


O 


C O 


u 


CJ C 


O 


ro 


O 


U 


OJ 


* to 


tn OJ 




tn co 


cu ,c 


M 


"a <U 


tvO 4J 


CO 


C M 


J-i o 


u 


CO 


rO 


C 


e >-. 


J2 rH 


CO 


OJ JO 


CJ rH 


•T3 


r-t 


< 


c 


tn 


OJ 


OJ 


OJ 4-1 


rH 


IW 


T3 rH 


Cu • 


a» 


3 «H 


•H TJ 


T3 


rH 3 


4-* 01 




CJ 00 


rH 4-1 


OJ 


c 


3 C 


rH 


•H 4-» 


e ^ 


e- 


O 





■H 


4J C3 


co y 


4-1 


O 


a 


rH 


C 1- 


•H CO 


3 


c 


> CO 


e 


o 


rH ^ 




TJ fl 


o 


r~ 


CO 


> -o 


4-> 


cn «h 


c oj 


•H 


CJ V-t 


•H »-i 


3 


O 4-1 


OJ 




•H 


tn t3 


tn 


4-> "T3 


oj c 


0) 


^ S 

CO Rj 


cn oj 


CO 


(0 M 


CO 


O 4J 


o 


CJ 


c cn 


CO 




tn 


C CO 


a 


•H o 


M > 


M 


O 4J 



SAN F RANCISCO 
FELONY DISPOSITION STATISTICS 



Felony Arrests (adults over 18)1 

Felony defendants accused in 
Municipal Court 2 

Number accused in Superior Court3 

Convicted after plea of guilty 4 

Convicted after jury trial 4 

Juries sworn3 

Sentenced to State Prison 4 

Committed to California Youth 
Authority (adults) 4 

Committed to California Rehabilita- 
tion Center (Narcotics addiction) 4 

Sentenced to County Jail 
(without probation) 4 

Granted probation (including 
County Jail) 4 



FY 
73-74 


FY 
74-75 


FY 
75-76 


FY 
76-77 


10008 


10732 


9966 


9974 


6761 


6265 


5404 


4768 


2769 


2384 


2649 


2638 


1879 


1685 


1798 


2248 


87 


74 


143 


156 


175 


174 


212 


218 


336 


349 


393 


630 


51 


58 


69 


84 


226 


148 


248 


208 


20 


21 


50 


49 


1365 


1374 


1224 


1552 



1. San Francisco Police Department, CABLE Reports 

2. Municipal Court Clerk, Municipal Court Summary Report 

3. Administative Office of the Courts, Superior Courts 

recapitulation 

4. San Francisco County Clerk, Statistical Report 



14 



FELONY DISPOSITION STATISTICS 



Felony arrests (adults over 18)1 

Felony defendants accused in Municipal 
Court2 

Dismissals in Municipal Court2 

Bound over (held to answer) to Superior 
Court2 

Plea of guilty in Municipal Court: 
felony2 

Plea of guilty in Municipal Court: 
misdemeanor2 

Number accused in Superior Court (by 
information or indictment) 3 

Probation Revocation Hearings in Superior 
Court3 

Dismissal in Superior Court before trial3 

Dismissal or acquittal in Superior Court 
after trial 3 

Felony conviction after trial 3 

Pretrial settlement conferences 3 

Sentenced to State Prison^ 

Committed to California Youth Authority4 

Committed to California Rehabilitation 
Center (narcotics addiction) 4 

Sentenced to County Jail (without 
probation) 4 

Granted probation (including County 
Jail)4 



FY 1975-76 


FY 1976-77 


9966 


9974 


5404 


4768 


1222 


1123 


2059 


2250 


142 


234 


994 


472 


2649 


2638 


2276 


3435 


256 


269 


27 


17 


191 


195 


1441 


1172 


393 


630 


69 


84 


248 


208 


50 


49 


1224 


1552 



1. San Francisco Police Department , CABLE Reports 

2. Municipal Court Clerk, Municipal Court Summary Report 

3. Administrative Office of the Courts, Superior Courts 

Recapitulation 

4. San Francisco County Clerk, Statistical Report 



15 



Municipal Court Section 

The .Municipal Court Section is comprised of prosecutors 
whose duties involve the issuance of arrest and search 
warrants, the screening of charges initially filed by police or 
persons arrested for misdemeanors (or for felony charges which 
have been reduced to misdemeanors) , the presentation of 
evidence in some felony preliminary hearings, and the 
prosecution and disposition of misdemeanor cases in Municipal 
Court. 

Municipal Court Attorneys also prepare complaints, handle 
arraignment calendars, and prepare and argue pretrial motions 
(to suppress evidence, to modify or revoke probation, and for 
discovery) . These attorneys also, on occasion, conduct 
complaint hearings to screen the issuance of warrants. 

Misdemeanor prosecutions present a tremendous challenge. 
While individual cases are generally less serious than felonies 
some are quite serious and by virtue of their numbers represent 
a substantial crime problem. 

Local court rules dictate that a subject arrested prior 
to 5:00 A.M. will be arraigned on the same court day. Local 
court conditions dictate that this office cannot prosecute all 
misdemeanors to trial. Specifically, an average misdemeanor 
trial takes two to three days. Therefore, at a maximum, two 
misdemeanor jury trials can be held in a given court in a given 
week. Since there are no more than eight misdemeanor trial 
courts available in a given week, no more than 800 of the 



16 



20,000 misdmeanor cases brought each year can be tried. Thus 
misdemeanor deputies are faced with the situation of having to 
process a large number of cases in very little time, often 
making the decision whether to prosecute on insufficient 
information. 

This administration's first priority has been to improve 
felony prosecutions. As that effort bears fruit, attention 
will have to shift toward misdemeanor prosecution. The task 
will be to properly staff the misdemeanor teams and to support 
them with clerical staff and information systems that will make 
their jobs more efficient and productive. 

Misdemeanors, because of their volume, substantially 
affect this City's quality of life and left unchecked are a 
major detriment to the social and economic life of the City. 
They cannot be and are not viewed as unimportant prosecutions. 



17 



MISDEMEANORS IN MUNICIPAL COURT 

FY 1975-76 FY 1976-77 

Defendants Accused 

Penal Code Violations 11,001 10,691 

Local Ordinance, Violations 4,340 2,451 

Infractions 892 3,752 

Vehicle Code (hit and run, 
driving under the influence, 
reckless driving with injury, 
traffic felonies reduced 
pursuant to P.C. Section 1764 5,482 5,326 

All Other Traffic Violations 

TOTAL 
Juries Sworn 
Motions to Suppress 
Pretrial Settlement Conferences 
Probation Hearings 



Source: Clerk, Municipal Court, Summary Report 2A 



2,419 


2,153 


24,134 


24,373 


167 


172 


250 


385 


6,797 


7,870 


1,156 


1,477 



18 



Special Prosecution Unit 

The investigation and prosecution of cases involving 
sophisticated, systematic and organized criminal activity (with 
special emphasis on corruption in government) is now conducted 
by a team of investigators under the direction of two deputy 
district attorneys. A small unit to handle such cases was 
established in the Spring of 1976; it has been considerably 
augmented by a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration to establish a "Corruption Control Unit". The 
18 month grant will commence in August, 1977 and employ an 
additional attorney, four investigators, and a stenographer. 

The Unit's cases have included police corruption, 
embezzlement by government officials, certain political 
campaign reporting violations, and various extortion schemes. 
The Corruption Control Unit works in cooperation with the San 
Francisco Police Department's Intelligence and Special 
Investigators Units, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
California Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office, 
and the Organized Crime Strike Force of the U.S. Department of 
Justice. 



19 



. 












C areer Criminal Prosecution Unit 

"Project Against Fear," the San Francisco District 
Attorney's Career Criminal Program, will begin on July 20, 1977 
as a federally-funded prosecution campaign against the growing 
number of robberies and burglaries plaguing the City* 

The funding is the result of a grant provided by the Law 
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) in the amount of 
$296,659. These monies will fund a unit comprised of five 
veteran prosecutors and two investigators who work directly 
with the unit. Support personnel and various equipment and 
supplies will be provided through this Grant. 

The program will place special emphasis on those 
defendants whose records indicate they are making a career of 
robbery or residential burglary. The Program has as its 
hallmark intensified prosecution designed to remove these 
repeat offenders from the streets and into State Prison. 

Prior criminal record provides the objective criterion 
whereby the "career criminal" is designated for prosecution by 
the Program. Once so identified, the career offender finds his 
case screened for speedy and concentrated handling by the 
veteran prosecutors and their support staff. Lowered 
caseloads, additional time and resources applied to these cases 
improve the quality of investigation, the quality of evidence 
and consequently, the quality of the prosecution. This in 
conjunction with a policy of no "plea bargaining", and the 
demand for State Prison in all cases, insures that the 
convicted robber or burglar will almost always incur lengthy 
incarceration. 

20 



Development of closer liaison with the investigative and 
patrol units of the Police Department will result in cases 
which are better prepared from the outset and more likely to be 
won in court. A policy of educating the component areas of the 
criminal justice system (police, prosecution, judiciary, and 
defense) as to the practices and goals of the Career Criminal 
Program will assure enhanced awareness and success. 

The rationale for concentrated prosecution of the 
recidivist offender stems from studies indicating that the 
repeat offender will commit, on the average, 20 crimes per 
year. Since relatively few of these crimes will be solved, the 
incarceration of such an individual will result in the 
reduction of the overall number of crimes committed in the 
community. 



21 



Juvenile Court Section 

On January 1, 1977, a new juvenile justice law (AB 3121) 
took effect, drastically revising the role of the District 
Attorney in Juvenile Court. The new law grants the District 
Attorney the power to make original charging decisions and to 
appear and advocate sentencing dispositions. Under the 
previous law, charging decisions were within the province of 
the juvenile probation department and the District Attorney was 
permitted to appear to make sentencing recommendations only at 
the Court's invitation. Henceforth, the District Attorney will 
make charging decisions and sentence recommendations as a 
matter of right. Such powers should make for a more consistent 
policy in handling juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders 
represent more than 30% of all felony arrests in San Francisco. 

In recognition of the new powers conferred upon the 
District Attorney, experienced trial attorneys and two 
experienced investigators have been assigned to the Youth 
Guidance Center. Previously, Juvenile Court had been used as 
training area for less experienced prosecutors. 

Juvenile commitments in Fiscal Year 1976-77 increased 
significantly from the previous year. In 1975-76, 344 juvenile 
offenders were committed to the juvenile ranches and 129 were 
committed to the California Youth Authority. In 1976-77, 370 
juvenile offenders were committed to the ranches and 171 were 
committed to the California Youth Authority. 



22 



SAN FRANCISCO JUVENILE COURT STATISTICS 



FY 
74-75 



FY 
75-76 



FY 
76-77 



New petitions filed 

(California Welfare and Institutions 
Code Section 601, incorrigibility, 
truancy, other status offenses) 612 

New petitions filed 

(California Welfare and Institutions 

Code Section 602, criminal 

violations) 1258 

Commitments to youth ranches 345 

Commitments to California Youth 
Authority (new commitments, 
parole revocations) 125 



343 



222 



1317 



344 



161 



1365 



370 



171 



Source: Juvenile Probation Department, research department 



23 



I NVESTIGATION 

New emphasis has been placed on training and on 
professionalism of criminal investigators. The investigative 
bureau has been reorganized under the direction of a former 
career police detective. Regular investigative training 
classes and weapons qualification have been instituted. The 
scope of investigative work has been broadened considerably as 
investigations extend to areas heretofore not generally 
considered within the purview of investigators. Investigataors 
have been involved in the full spectrum of investigative 
functions, from interviews to surveillance and arrests. 



2 4 



VICT I M/WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

A program to help crime victims receive compensation and 
supportive services and which explains to witnesses what they 
can expect from the criminal justice system will begin July, 
1977. The program seeks to reinstill in victims and witnesses 
a faith in the criminal justice system by; providing referral 
to counseling, rehabilitation, and other social service 
agencies, assistance in applying for state compensation; 
assistance with transportation and child care; and information 
regarding court procedures, scheduling, and case disposition. 

The program will be administered by the District 
Attorney's Office in conjunction with a Policy Committee which 
will oversee general policy implementation. The committee is 
comprised of the District Attorney, the Chief of Police, the 
Public Defender, the Chairperson of the Commission on Aging, 
the Chairperson of the Commission on the Status of Women, the 
President of the San Francisco Barristers Club, the Chairman of 
the Police, Fire, and Safety Committee of the Board of 
Supervisors, the General Manager of the Department of Social 
Services, and the Director of the Department of Health. 

The program's initiation relfects a growing recognition 
that witnesses and victims often will not come forward to 
cooperate with authorities because of fear, inconvenience, 
delay, or insensitivity by the criminal justice system. By 
making the victim or witness as comfortable as possible, the 



2 5 



\ The project is funded by a Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration (LEAA) grant, through the Mayor's Criminal 
Justice Council. It has three professional staff members and 
uses volunteers extensively. 



26 



FAMILY SUPPORT BUREAU 

The Family Support Bureau was created in January 1976 to 
comply with the federal and state laws charging the District 
Attorney with the responsibility of establishing and enforcing 
child support obligations in all cases where children are 
receiving welfare assistance and in any case when requested to 
do so by the custodial parent. 

The remaining mandated fuctions produce revenue for San 
Francisco's general fund and reduce the cost of welfare to the 
City. 

The custodial parent who is receiving Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children (AFDC) assigns his or her interest in 
the child support payments to the Department of Social 
Services. Money collected is then recovered against the 
welfare grant. Although this does not affect the amount of the 
grant received, it does reduce the government's cost in 
providing welfare payments. 

A combination of federal and state money called Support 
Enforcement Incentive Funding (SEIF) is used to pay San 
Francisco a bonus for every dollar collected which can be 
recouped against a welfare case. This bonus ranges from 2.75% 
to 27.75% of the welfare recoupment and varies according to the 
residences of both the custodial and absent parents. Both 
parents do not have to reside within the same state as under 
the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) 



27 



jurisdiction over the case can be transferred from state to 
state. 

The federal government also reimburses San Francisco for 
75% of the direct and indirect operating costs of both the 
Family Support Bureau and those Social Service employees 
engaged in child support activities. Finally, the state 
offsets 19% of the welfare recoupment against the county's 
share of AFDC costs. 

In order to give Child Support Enforcement the tools to 
track down absent parents the federal government created the 
Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) and mandated each state 
to create its own PLS. The PLS has been granted access to 
various governmental records such as Social Security, 
unemployment insurance and so forth. Unfortunately, due to an 
avalanche of national publicity, the PLS has not been able to 
cope with the tremendous flow of requests for information. If 
the request must be forwarded from the state PLS to the federal 
level, it takes close to 18 months for a response. 

The Bureau began fiscal year 1976-77 with 72 people on 
the payroll out of an authorized strength of 127. The 
continuation of a hiring freeze instituted in April 1976 caused 
this to ebb to a low of 64. The Bureau had requested a level 
of 135 people for 1976-77. The Mayor's Office reduced that 
request to 121. The level was further reduced by the Board of 
Supervisors to 104 positions. 



28 



In September 1976 the Board of Supervisors agreed to a 
restructured budget and the freeze was lifted. This lead to a 
marked improvement in collections. From January through June 
1976 the Bureau had averaged $163,386 per month. In the first 
quarter of Fiscal Year 1976-77, this moved up to $172,823 per 
month. In the succeeding quarters the average monthly figure 
went from $209,960 to $223,509 to $257,197. This was due to a 
more stable work force which permitted adjustments to the work 
flow and reorganization of the operational units resulting in 
increased efficiency. 

By November 1976 most of the staff vacancies had been 
filled. The San Francisco Civil Service Commission created the 
Family Support Investigator series and these people were hired 
on a permanent basis at the end of September. In January 1977 
a new director was hired. These actions did much to reduce 
personnel turnover at the Family Support Bureau. 

Operational problems with the Department of Social 
Services also diminished. There was a marked improvement in 
the referral process from DSS to FSB although problems still 
exist with referrals of persons who are having their grants 
renewed. 

Compared to the last six months of 1975-76 there was a 
dramatic increase in welfare collections. From January to June 
1976, the monthly welfare collection figure was $68,880. This 
increased by 90.90% to an average monthly figure of $131,490 
during 1976-77. Welfare collections are of highest importance 



29 
























I 

I 



■ 






■ 



to FSB since the bonus revenues are only derived from them. 
The City does not get a bonus for collecting non-welfare child 
support payments. There was also a substantial drop in the 
percentage of "Other and Unable to Identify" payments. These 
amounted to 11.86% of the total collections for the last year 
of 1975-76 but fell to 6.7% in 1976-77. 

There was a 80.82% increase in the average monthly APDC 
offset from the last six months of 1975-76 to the twelve months 
of fiscal year 1976-77. It went from $9,851 to $17,813. 

COLLECTIONS STATISTICS 
JANUARY 1, 1976 - JUNE 30, 1976 
Welfare Collections $ 413,281 42.16% 

Non-Welfare Collections 450,683 45.98% 

Other & Unable to Identify 116,244 11.86% 

Total Collections $ 980,208 100.00% 

During this period the program cost was $647,037 of which 
476,599 was offset by the Federal Administrative Reimbursement. 

COLLECTION STATISTICS 
JULY 1, 1976 - JUNE 30, 1977 

Welfare Collections $ 1,577,877 60.91% 

Non-Welfare Collections 837,013 32.31% 

Other & Unable to Identify 175,581 6.78% 

Total Collections $ 2,590,471 100.00% 
During 76/77 the program cost was $1,522,116 which was offset 

by the Federal Administrative Reimbursement of $1,135,569. 

30 









• 



' 



REVENUE & AFDC OFFSET STATISTICS 
JANUARY 1, 1976 - JUNE 30, 1976 
Support Enforcement Incentive Fund (SEIF) $ 101,954 
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support 

Responding (URESA-R) 7,400 * 

TOTAL $ 109,354 
Offset to County's Share of AFDC Cost $ 59,106 

REVENUE AND AFDC OFFSET STATISTICS 
JULY 1, 1976 - JUNE 30, 1976 
Support Enforcement Incentive Fund (SEIF) $ 297,854 
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support 

Responding (URESA-R) 19,500 * 

TOTAL $ 317,354 
Offset to County's Share of AFDC Cost $ 213,347 

*URESA-R monies are paid to San Francisco by other states who 
have requested that FSB enforce an order aganst an obligor who 
lives here but whose family lives in the other state. 
Unfortunately the federal URESA law does not provide any way 
for the enforcing state to collect its bonus money from the 
initiating state. The payment procedure has been set up 
through the State Department of Benefit Payments which has not 
developed a reliable tracking system. This money has been very 
slow to trickle in and FSB has been forced to estimate the 
potential revenue. 



31 



CONSUMER FRAUD/WHITE COLLAR CRIME UNIT 

The purpose of the Consumer Fraud/White Collar Crime Unit 
is to protect consumers and legitimate businesses from 
fraudulent business practices that affect the community as a 
whole. The Unit enforces California consumer laws through 
criminal and civil prosecution. It also offers mediation 
services to resolve individual consumer grievances. 

The Consaumer Fraud/White Collar Crime Unit was 
reorganized in March, 1976. The staff of 27 currently includes 
eight attorneys, six prosecutors investigators, four complaint 
mediation investigators, one accountant, and support staff. 
This staff is supplemented by up to 30 interns at a time who 
contribute $150,000 per year in free labor. 

The Consumer Fraud Unit is divided into complaint 
mediation and prosecution sectons. Complaint mediation is a 
new function in the District Attorney's Office. The 
establishment of such assistance was necessary because no other 
local government agency handles individual consumer 
complaints. At little cost to the taxpayer because much of the 
work is performed by volunteers from area law schools and 
universities, the Consumer Fraud Unit responds to, 
investigates, and mediates over 300 consumer complaints each 
month. These services provide a low-cost effective way of 
resolving disputes which avoids lawyers, litigation, and the 
courts, and have been successful in recovering approximately 



32 






• 



, 





















$7,000 per month. Matters that are not appropriate for 
mediation are handled by the prosecution section. 

The Unit has experienced dramatic growth in the last two 
years. Prom fiscal year 1974-75 to fiscal year 1976-77, there 
has been a 155% increase in the monies recovered by mediation 
and a 590% increase in monies received from litigation. 
Consumer confidence has also apparently grown dramatically, as 
the number of persons bringing complaints for resolution to the 
District Attorney's Consumer Fraud Unit has more than doubled 
over the same period. 
Complaint Mediation 

Since the Unit began in early 1976, it has received 
approximately 5,000 complaints. In many instances, individual 
complaints are quickly resolved with just a few telephone 
calls. Other complaints, however, may take weeks of careful 
research and persistent follow-up before a satisfactory 
resolution is obtained. The spirited efforts of the mostly 
volunteer complaint resolution staff resulted in recovery of 
approximately $100,000 during 1977 for San Francisco consumers, 
an amount which represents cash refunds as well as the dollar 
value of goods and services received. 

The Consumer Fraud Unit staff has contacted over 100 
community groups to ensure that all segments of the community 
know about the District Attorney's mediation and referral 
services. A new facet of the outreach effort is a series of 
workshops on "How to Proceed in Small Claims Court." 



33 



Along with improving the efficiency of its complaint 
intake system and providing outreach services, the Unit has 
been involved in a pilot computer program sponsored by the 
California Department of Consumer Affairs. The complaint 
resolution complaints are recorded on computer forms. Data 
from these forms will be made available to help consumer 
protection agencies throughout California. In this way, 
information and research done by these agencies will be more 
effectively shared and efforts more successfully coordinated. 
The program is expected to have far-reaching consequences in 
combating consumer fraud in California. 
Complaint-Mobile 

To bring the services of the Consumer Fraud Unit to 
citizens in their own neighboroods, the District Attorney will 
initiate a consumer "Complaint-Mobile" project in July, 1977. 
Staffed by bilingual law students and volunteers, the 
Complaint-Mobile will travel to publicized neighborhood sites 
throughout San Francisco, including the Mission, Chinatown, 
Sunset, Bayview-Hunter 's Point, and the Richmond. 

The Complaint-Mobile is designed to respond effectively 
to complaints of all San Francisco residents, but particularly 
the elderly and low-income residents, many of whom lack 
mobility and cannot come to the Hall of Justice, or who are 
unaware of the Unit's services. 



34 



Litigation / j 

While volunteer workers mediate individual consumer 
complaints, the legal and investigative staff of the Consumer 
Fraud/White Collar Crime Unit has pursued a number of cases 
with the goal of educating the public and of providing a 
therapeutic effect in the marketplace. The suits filed by the 
Unit demonstrate that the District Attorney is willing to 
enforce the law against all violators, powerful or small. As a 
result of civil and criminal cases filed in fiscal 1976-77, the 
Unit recovered restitution totalling $264,333 for consumers and 
was awarded $369,599 in penalties, costs, and fines. 



, 



35 



FY 74-75 


FY 75-76 


FY 76-77 


$166,288 


$141,295 


$633,933 


n/a 


$ 47,094 


$264,334 



CONSUMER FRAUD/WHITE COLLAR CRIME UNIT 

COMPARISO N OF STATISTICS 

Awarded: 

Fines, Penalties, Costs, 
Restitution 

Restitution — Court-Ordered 
Only 

Collected ; 

Fines, Penalties, Costs, $ 65,983 $ 53,736 $389,532 
Restitution 

Restitution without Court $ 49,715 $ 61,805 $ 76,998 
Action (Mediation) 

Complaints Received 1,366 1,437 3,016 



36 



Elect i o"-^ Code Violations 

Numerous violations of Election Code provisions by 
non-rpn'H^nid came to light as a result of investigative 
reporting prior to and during the 1975 election compaign 
(No Simper-December 1975) . Prosecutions of such violations were 
held in abeyance until April 1976 when a special three judge 
U.S. District Court determined that it was not going to 
intervene to prohibit prosecution. 

Thereafter the District Attorney's Office announced that 
it would prosecute as felonies all violations of Election Laws 
which occurred in November and December of 1975, but that, 
because of conflicting and misleading opinions by public 
authorities regarding the propriety of non-resident voting, 
non-resident voters who refrained from voting in 1975 would not 
be prosecuted for previous elections. 

One full-time principal attorney, tv/o part-time volunteer 
attorneys, and two full-time criminal investigators worked 
exclusively on voter fraud investigations from April until 
December, 1976. In the process, preliminary investigations 
were done on more than 1,600 persons. These preliminary 
investigations involved interviews or telephone inquiries of 
witnesses and suspects, as well as contacting various agencies 
such as county assessors (for homeowners* claims of exemption) , 
P.G.&E., and Pacific Telephone (utility use claimed in 
"residence") , as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles 



37 



(driver's license and automobile registration addresses). In 
addition, investigators reviewed documents (e.g. Revenue 
Directories, the Secretary of State's D.M.V. -Voter Registration 
Computer print-out) for more than 9,000 individual situations. 

The investigation resulted in felony charges being filed 
against 45 persons, 40% of which resulted in conviction and the 
remainder in dismissal. Misdemeanor charges were filed against 
two deputy registrars (an analomy in the Elections Code makes 
illegal acts by registrars prosecutable only as misdemeanors.) 

In addition to the unusually large problem of voter fraud 
and registration irregularities faced during this period, the 
District Attorney's Office embarked upon its newly legislated 
duties in the area of compaign practices and spending reform. 

Under the terms of the Political Reform act of 1974 
(Prop. 9) the District Attorney became the primary prosecutor 
of criminal violations of the Act, having concurrent 
prosecution authority with the Attorney General. Political 
campaign reporting irregularities are frequently referred by 
the Registrar of Voters to the District Attorney for 
investigations and possible action. Additionally, the District 
Attorney was designated the "Enforcement Authority" for the 
Municipal Election Campaign Contribution Control Ordinance 
enacted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in March of 
1976. As such, this office must now review all campaign 
contribution expenditure reports filed by candidates and 
committees in Municipal elections. 



38 



A STRONGER GUN POLICY 

The personal possession of unlicensed, concealable 
firearms by a first offender is a misdemeanor offense which is 
prosecuted in the over-worked Municipal Court. After 
considerable review, it was determined these cases were being 
treated too casually and that sentences in most cases were much 
too lenient. 

The District Attorney's Office policy has been revised in 
an attempt to reverse the trend; since November, 1976, it has 
been the policy of the office that it will demand on the record 
two to six months jail time, for persons convicted of illegal 
possession of firearms. 

Additionally, in all felony cases the use or possession 
of a weapon during the commission of a felony is being 
consistently charged as a sentencing enhancing factor. The 
District Attorney's Office is vigorously objecting to the 
striking of enhancing clauses at the time of sentencing. 



39 



PSYCHIATRIC COURT 

The primary functions of the psychiatric court deputies 
are as follows: 1) to represent the People in conservatorship 
and ancillary proceedings as required by Welfare and 
Institutions Code Section 5114; 2) to investigate allegations 
that persons are mentally disordered or addicted to narcotics 
or other habit forming drugs and, when appropriate, to take 
action under applicable Penal or Welfare and Institutions Code 
provisions? and 3) to interview and advise persons requesting 
information on psychiatric facilities and legal procedures 
relating to the problems of mental illness, chronic alcoholism, 
and drug addiction. 

Conservatorship proceedings (under the Lanterman- Petris- 
Short Act) are instituted to provide care, supervision, and, 
where appropriate, institutional commitment for persons who, as 
a result of mental disorder, are unable to provide for the 
basic personal needs of food, clothing or shelter. 
Conservatorship is often opposed by patients, either by a 
contested hearing, a writ of habeas corpus, a jury trial on the 
issue of "grave disability," or by a review hearing. The 
People are charged with the responsibility of presenting 
evidence to support the recommendations of psychiatrists and 
conservatorship investigators that a conversator is needed to 
assist a patient in providing for basic needs. 



40 



General citizen complaints concerning mental illness, 
alcoholism and drug addiction are investigated by a 
psychologist employed as a psychiatric investigator in the 
District Attorney's Office. In addition to his duties with the 
public, he assists with investigation and preparation of cases 
where a psychiatric background is shown. In misdemeanor cases 
where defendants, because of their mental condition, have been 
diverted from the normal channels of the criminal justice 
system to hospitals or local psychiatric facilties, detailed 
follow-up investigation is conducted by the psychiatric 
investigator. Additionally, the investigator assists in 
investigations to locate relatives or other interested persons 
who are willing and able to assume responsibility for the 
patient and arrange private psychiatric care or hospitalization 
without the ncessity of court proceedings. 



41 



PSYCHIATRIC DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 

1975-76 1976-77 

Notices of certification filed 

(14-day intensive treatment) 581 541 

New petitions for conservatorship filed 

(does not include renewals) 403 450 

Conservatorships granted 180 172 

Writs of Habeas Corpus filed n/a 54 



Source: Clerk, Superior Court Psychiatric Division 



! 



42 



TR AINING 

During fiscal 1976-77, the District Attorney's Office 
established, pursuant to an LEAA grant, an on-going training 
program for both deputy district attorneys and for criminal 
investigators. Made possible by a grant from the Mayor's 
Criminal Justice Council, the program permitted the hiring of a 
training officer to assist attorneys in courtroom procedures 
and techniques. Additionally, the training officer began a 
policy and procedures manual for attorneys. In the past, no 
attempt had been made to establish routinized procedures 
codified in one source. The training officer has also given 
extensive lectures on search and seizure and related legal 
subjects in the Police Academy to cadets beginning their 
careers as police officers. Weekly updates on recent appellate 
decisions, as well as other changes in the law, are not 
provided for attorneys in videotape presentations. Attorneys 
now also receive weekly briefs of all reported criminal and 
evidentiary decisions through the California District Attorneys 
Assocation. 

Increased office participation in seminars (tuition 
for which is usually supported by the Law Enforcement 
Assistance Administration) on various subjects {such as 
forensic sciences, family support, organized crime and economic 
crime) has been encouraged. Similarly, basic prosecutor 
courses conducted by the California District Attorney's 



43 



Assocation or by the National College of District Attorneys 
have been utilized with increasing frequency. 

In-service training programs for investigators have 
been developed in the Family Support Bureau to maximize 
collections and to encourage efficient case management. 
Regular weapons qualification and training have also been 
instituted for investigative personnel involved in criminal 
cases. 



44 



ARBITRATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE 

In September of 1976, the San Francisco District 
Attorney's Office in conjunction with the American Arbitration 
Association initiated a pilot program which utilized 
arbitration to resolve minor non-violent misdemeanor 
complaints. Arbitration is often more advantageous than the 
criminal process because a settlement agreement constitutes a 
binding contract which often provides more flexibility in 
providing a solution to a dispute, particularly in cases 
involving nuisance, animals, landlord-tenant conflicts and 
certain disturbing-the-peace cases. 

The program focuses on disputes arising from 
situations where the parties have some relationship, for 
example, as neighbors or co-workers. Designed to reduce the 
need for arrest and prosecution in minor, time-consuming types 
of cases, the arbitration concept seeks to provide a voluntary 
constructive means of resolving the conflict, thereby lessening 
the likelihood of repetition or escalation into more serious 
incidents. 

The program has bern conducted at no cost to the 
participants or taxpayers; from the time of its inception, it 
has provided the many citizens who have elected to avail 
themselves of its services with a speedy and effective 
voluntary alternative to formal and expensive criminal 
litigation. 



45 



During fiscal year 1976-77, the program was referred 
125 cases by the District Attorney's Office. No action was 
taken in 68 cases; positivie action was taken in 50 cases, 23 
of which were settled before hearing. Twenty-seven hearings 
were held; of those 17 resulted in mutual agreement, and 10 
resulted in an arbitrator's decision in favor of one party. 



46 



WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTIONS 

Pursuant to state welfare regulations the San 
Francisco Department of Social Services is required to report 
to the District Attorney all cases of suspected fraud in the 
City's social welfare programs. These programs include Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) , Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, 
and General Assistance (G.A.). Thefts and forgeries of City 
warrants (checks) are also prosecuted locally. Cases of 
suspected fraud or theft are investigated by the District 
Attorney's Office with the assistance of personnel assigned to 
fraud investigaton by the Department of Social Services and the 
San Francisco Police Department. Additional assistance is 
provided by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Fraud and 
check theft investigation reports are then screened by an 
assistant district attorney and, where deemed appropriate, 
felony or misdemeanor charges are filed against the suspect or 
suspects. 

Social welfare crime is complex and is frequently the 
result of factors completely beyond the control or regular law 
enforcement. Effective detection and prosecution of welfare 
fraud offenders continues to require maximum cooperation 
between a multitude of local, state, and federal agencies. 



47 



BAIL BOND COLLECTIONS 



As a collateral aspect of criminal prosecution work, 
the Office of the District Attorney secures civil judgments 
against insurable companies which have issued bail bonds 
guaranteeing the appearance in court of criminal defendants who 
subsequently failed to appear. 



FY 74-75 FY 75-76 FY 76-77 



Summary judgments 



21 



23 



27 



Collected 



$99,500 $52,100 $70,500 



Uncollected pending appeal 
by City Attorney 



$21,500 $15,000 $18,000 



48 



11 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
BO 



ANNUAL REPORT TO MAYOR 



DISTRICT ATTORNEY 




SAN FRANCISCO 



Submitted by 



JOSEPH FREITAS, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY 



July 1, 1977 - June 30, 1979 



TABLE OF CONTENT S 

■ i n i ■ — ■■■■■■■—■ ■— i 

I. Introduction 1 

II. Duties and Organization 8 

III. Major Divisions: 

A. Criminal Division 

1. Felony Prosecutions 10 

2. Misdemeanor Prosecutions 18 

3. Grand Jury 23 

4. Juvenile 25 

5. Psychiatric 27 

6. Investigations 30 

B. Consumer Fraud 32 

C. Family Support Bureau 39 

IV. Special Organization Units 

A. Career Criminal 43 

B. Special Prosecutions 48 

C. Victim/Witness & New Grants 54 

D. Election Code Violations 62 

E. Welfare Fraud 64 



INTRODUCTION 



This report, which covers the period from July 1, 1977 
through June 30 , 1979, is the las\t report of the District 
Attorneys Office which clearly reflects the product of my 
administration. I view it with pride and the knowledge that 
the People of San Francisco have been well served. 

Much of this Administration's work will endure. One of my 
greatest personal pleasures has been to appoint bright, 
dedicated and energetic professionals as Deputy District 
Attorneys. We have broken racial, ethnic and sex barriers to 
hiring and promotion and now have a staff which more closely 
reflects the community we serve. 



We have ventured into areas never before envisioned by a 
San Francisco District Attorney. We pioneered what is now San 
Francisco's only consumer protection office; the Consumer Fraud 
Unit. We brought into San Francisco $2,808,878.00 in State and 
Federal grants to establish the following projects: The 
Victim/Witness Assistance Project, a Family Violence Project, 
an Integrated Police-Prosecutor Witness Assistance Project, the 
Career Criminal Prosecutions Project, the Special Prosecutions 
Unit, and the Arson Task Force. 

Through these projects we have delivered needed services to 
victims of and witnesses to violent crime. We have 
demonstrated the effectiveness of specialty prosecution teams, 
and we have shown that public and private people with power 
need watching in San Francisco no less than in other major 
cities. We have been instrumental in the formation and funding 
of an Arson Task Force which is achieving a national reputation 
for its innovative organizational structure and its strong 
prosecutor involvement. 

These projects have altered the perception of the District 
Attorney's role, and have created the expectation that 
prosecution can be tough, even-handed and fair. There is no 
going back. 



I have been most pleased with our record in prosecuting 
serious felons. We have, over the past four years, increased 
State Prison commitments by 2 1/2 times to a level more than 
twice that of any year in the last twenty. The chart which 
follows demonstrates this most graphically. 

This record is the product of several factors including the 
determinate sentencing law (SB 42) . But most notably it is the 
product of taking serious crime seriously and organizing to 
prosecute serious crime most effectively. 

I leave this office in much better shape than I received 
it. My successors in office will have to fight hard, however, 
just to retain past advances. Much of our progress has been 
purchased at taxpayer expense and the financial pressure on the 
office through the eighties will be intense. This pressure 
will attack both staffing levels and prosecution policy. 

There is and will continue to be financial pressure from 
the State to limit the number of State Prison commitments from 
San Francisco. The unfortunate fact is, however, that there 
are a lot of people for whom there is no other socially 
responsible alternative. My successors will have to resist 
such pressure unless or until realistic and responsible 
alternatives can be developed. 



\e*o 



*» 




Ux> 



4" 



SOtfC ?RVS>ort <S6mSv^e* 



t*o 



n,©** 



Hot* 



ll.M© 



|l,M0 



Sooo 



*ot» 



7O30 



iooo 



£MO 



4ooo 



"# 



< 
y 



3 i 









;• o 



S * 



-r v 



r^ r 



« s 



S j -» £ "5 3 



o 

J 



S S £ 
«r r c 



X "C 



C 4- £ ° C v 

T* 21 T" v V f 

c c s: £ s 1 



Ninety three percent (93%) of the District Attorney's 
budget is for personnel related expenses. Thus, whatever level 
of funding is maintained during the '80's r we are going to have 
to closely evaluate what kinds of cases the office prosecutes, 
how we distribute the prosecution workload, and how the 
prosecution process can be made less labor intensive. 

The most promising single area for revision is misdemeanor 
prosecutions. Most misdemeanors are serious only in their 
frequency of occurrance. 58% of all misdemeanor arrests are 
for offenses so minor that no permanent record (rap sheet) is 
kept of them. Most misdemeanants are either chronic and do not 
benefit from their exposure to the criminal justice system or 
are one time offenders who do not recieve and would not benefit 
from jail sentences. 

Misdemeanor prosecutions are not very "successful" criminal 
cases in that roughly two thirds of all non-traffic 
misdemeanors are either refused for prosecution, dismissed or 
given credit for time served in exchange for a plea of guilty. 

The fact is that most misdemeanors could be diverted from 
the criminal process without detriment to the defendants or 
society. It is imperative that alternatives to prosecution 
exist and that the system is able to identify and divert such 
cases before they are referred to the District Attorney for 
prosecution. 



Misdemeanor prosecutions are expensive, and alternatives to 
criminal prosecution would have significant cost reduction 
benefits for the District Attorney, Public Defender, Courts, 
and Sheriff. 

By making adjustments to the misdemeanor process we can 
preserve resource for the prosecution of more serious cases. 
It is none the less true, however, that felony deputies are 
both our most valuable and costly resource. Their time must be 
made as productive as possible. We must look carefully at the 
expendature of their time, and consider the increased use of 
secretarial and paralegal assistance where that can result in 
cost reduction. 

Numerous studies have shown, and our own experience 
confirms, that rigorous screening of felonies at the rebooking 
stage is an effective method of preserving prosecutor 
resource. We also know that by not swamping our deputies with 
bad cases they will be more effective on the good ones. While 
it seems paradoxical, and is politically difficult, we must 
resist the temptation to mindlessly prosecute all felony 
arrests. The commitment rate already mentioned speaks 
eloquently to this point. 



Finally, the District Attorney must not become party to the 
Proposition 13 mentality. The District Attorney is a peace 
officer and an attorney. He is not a bureaucrat or an 
accountant. He cannot accept the concept that the public is 
better served with fewer prosecutors. Over the past four years 
I have fought hard for additional staff and have demonstrated 
their effectiveness. My successors cannnot allow this strength 
to be chipped away. 



I have enjoyed the past four years and welcomed the 

opportunity to serve the People of San Francisco. I return to 

private practice with the satisfaction of knowing that they 
were served well. 



Dated: January 4, 1980 



Signed: 




Duties of the District Attorney 

The District Attorney is charged with the responsibility 
of prosecuting public offenses committed within the boundaries 
of the City and County of San Francisco. 

Prosecution by the District Attorney's Office is not 
limited to the presentation of evidence in a court of law. The 
overall prosecution of a criminal case includes criminal 
investigation, grand jury inquiries, conferring on legislation 
and drafting new legislation, advising law enforcement officers 
and involvement in other criminal proceedings such as search 
warrants, arraignments, preliminary hearings, pretrial motions 
(demurrers, motions to suppress, etc.) pretrial conferences, 
sentencing recommendations, and motions to revoke grants of 
probation. 

Additionally, the District Attorney has duties in mental 
health commitments, consumer protection, family support 
(collection of civil judgments ordering an absent spouse to pay 
support for his children/family), juvenile prosectuions , and 
election and campaign law enforcement. 

In order to execute his responsibilities in an effective 
and efficient manner, the District Attorney's Office is divided 
into seven major divisions. The largest division by far is 
Criminal Prosecutions which in turn is broken down into four 
major sections. This organization is depicted graphically on 
the following page, and each division and major section is 
reported on separately in the material that follows. 












o 



3s~ 

OOP. 

www 

to O 



o _ 
B5SO 

o 

Oi , 

w p:' 
ex: 






S 3 

o 





|H"-* 



3 



2 
M 

oce 

m u — . 
3P0 

05C O 

M X 

x u*-~ 
H 

a 
o 

X 



Several of the District Attorney's most important duties 
do not require sufficient staff to warrant a separate division 
and thus do not show on the organization chart. These 
functions are assigned to one or more deputies in addition to 
their regular workload. These functions are also discussed 
separately following the divisional material. 



FELONY PROSECUTIONS 

Felony prosecutions are this office's first priority. It 
is important to the maintenance of this city's moral fiber that 
criminals who commit the most serious crimes be prosecuted 
vigorously. 

It is not possible for the District Attorney to take all 
felony cases to trial. There are not enough courts, judges and 
Deputy District Attorneys to do it. 

Trial, by court or by jury, is a constitutionally 
protected right of all Americans. Moreover, trial is an 
important method of resolving cases where there is doubt about 
a defendant's guilt or innocence. However, trial is not the 
usual way of disposing of criminal cases. Most cases are 
disposed by plea of guilty or by dismissal after both sides 
have thoroughly reviewed the evidence and other factors such as 
the availability of witnesses which effect the strength of a 
case. 

Such negotiated settlements are necessary and work to the 
economic benefit of the People and the defendant. They are bad 
only if they fail to do justice. 

The only way to protect the interests of justice is for 
all parties to the negotiation to work from a position 
strength. The defendant's interests are represented by the 
Private Bar or the Public Defender. The People's interests are 
represented by the District Attorney. 



10 



In January 1976, the District Attorney's Office was 
reorganized in order to strengthen our representation of the 
People's interests. This reorganization was supported by 
tougher prosecution policies. The results have been dramatic. 

In January 1976, the Superior Court Section was 
reorganized into several felony teams, to each of which was 
assigned to the prosecution of certain categories of crimes 
(e.g., homicide, burglary, etc.). The prosecutors in each team 
were given responsibility for handling cases from initial 
charging to the ultimate disposition by plea or trial. This 
method of case assignment is called vertical representation. 
Vertical representation ensures individual accountability for 
case disposition, accuracy of initial charges, case continuity, 
technical competence, and investigative cooperation with the 
police inspectors. 

Simultaneous to the above reorganization, this office 
ceased the practice of over-charging felonies. Prior District 
Attorneys had sometimes filed felony charges based on felony 
arrests without critical review of a case's merits. They 
believed that this made them look tough, and allowed them to 
blame the courts when cases which were improperly charged as 
felonies were, inevitably, dismissed. Their practice was 
mistaken, very expensive, and ineffective. 

It is the District Attorney's policy to prosecute a case 
as a felony only if the facts and the evidence will support a 
felony conviction. Felony arrests which cannot stand up in 



11 



court are reduced to misdemeanors or are rejected immediately, 
rather than being left to die a slow, time consuming and 
expensive death. 

This is a policy which is recommended by the American Bar 
Association, the National Association of District Attorneys, 
and which is dictated by a sense of simple justice. In 
addition, it forces the Police to do better investigations and 
creates an atmosphere where felony prosecutions are taken 
seriously. 

The results are seemingly paradoxical, but make sense on 
inspection. According to the Department of Justice Bureau of 
Criminal Statistics, in 1978 San Francisco had one of the 
highest rates of felony arrest rejections and, at the same 
time, one of the highest rates of obtaining State Prison 
sentences on felony arrests in the State. 

The fact is that by eliminating cases that should not be 
charged as felonies at the outset we preserve our resources to 
prosecute violent and serious felonies to conviction and to 
take on tough cases that are basically sound but which require 
a lot of work. 

Defendants and Defense Attorneys know that when this 
office files felony charges, those charges are supported by the 
facts and will be prosecuted by a team of experts. 

It is also the policy of the District Attorney that in 
violent or fear inducing crimes we will accept a plea of guilty 
to only the most serious charge. Defendants and defense 



12 



attorneys know that they can't coerce the District Attorney 
into accepting a plea of guilty to a lesser charge by demanding 
a trial. We are prepared and willing to go to trial in all 
such cases. 

It should be pointed out that during the past 3 1/2 years 
the staff of criminal attorneys has increased by 50%. In spite 
of that hard-won increase, Bureau of Criminal Statistics 
figures for 1978 show San Francisco to have the highest number 
of felony dispositions per attorney of any major Califoria 
county. Given the realities of Proposition 13, it is crucial 
that a prosecutor know how to manage his office in the most 
cost effective way. 

Our case management practice has been most effective. 
This fact is demonstrated by the table of Felony Disposition 
Statistics and the graph of felony arrests and State Prison 
sentences which follows. 

The most significant single measure of success is the 
increase in cases receiving state prison sentences. During the 
past 3 1/2 years this number has increased by 2 1/2 times, to a 
level more than twice that of any year in the past twenty. 
This reflects an increase in both the number of convictions and 
the quality of convictions. 

It is interesting to note that the number of defendants 
pleading guilty to felonies has also increased. Many of these 
defendants plea guilty knowing that they will be sentenced to 
state prison. This is the most dramatic evidence possible 



13 



that this office has achieved a position of strength over the 
past 3 1/2 years. 

Not all felons receive state prison sentences. In many 
cases it is more appropriate that they receive some amount of 
time in the county jail and a significant term of probation. 
The message to the felon is this, "if you can stay in the 
community and alter your lifestyle, we will take no additional 
adverse action". When used properly, probation is an 
opportunity to maintain family and community ties and for 
self -rehabilitation. 

If conditions of probation are not enforced, however, 
probation becomes a mere formalism and is tantamount to 
forgiveness. 

Starting in 1976, this office increased by more than 50% 
the number of Motions to Revoke filed on felony probationers 
who were re-arrested. This effort is important for the 
protection of San Francisco and in order to make probation a 
substantive and reasonable alternative to prison. 

The San Francisco District Attorney has been a leader in 
pioneering more effective programs for criminal prosecutions. 
The above organization and policies have been adopted by the 
National District Attorney's Association as their recommended 
practice. In addition, the District Attorney has attracted 
$1,606,039.00 in state and federal funding for programs 
targeting Career Criminal (robber and burglar) prosecutions, 
corruption control, arson prosecutions, consumer and 



14 



victim/witness services. Each of these is discussed elsewhere 
in this report. 

The Master Calendar Court coordinates the activity of the 
Superior Courts assigned to the Criminal Division. The trial 
assignment policies of the San Francisco Master Calendar Court 
and the District Attorney's Office have for many years produced 
a speedy trial record that is a model for the entire nation. 
Presently, all felony trials are set to begin within thirty 
days after the defendant has been arraigned and entered a 
plea. In practice, nearly all trials commence within the 
thirty days set by the Master Calendar judge. It is the policy 
of the District Attorney's Office to encourage and cooperate 
with these trial setting practices of the Superior Court. 

In summary, the San Francisco District Attorney has placed 
top priority on the tough and effective prosecution of felony 
cases with special emphasis on the prosecution of violent and 
fear producing crimes. Cases are screened prior to filing and 
cases are filed as felonies only where the facts indicate a 
felony took place. Felonies are prosecuted by specialty teams 
who are prepared to take every case to trial. The result is 
that felony prosecutions are taken seriously, that an 
increasing number of defendants admit guilt and the number of 
cases receiving state prison sentences has increased 2 1/2 
times in 3 1/2 years. 



15 





ON 










































r^ 










































1 


^ 




00 


r- 




^r 


rH 




CM 




vo 


r-\ 


O 




in 


in 


VO 


^ 


rH 




00 


M" 




m 


o 




o 


ON 




rH 




CM 


*# 


VO 




r-H 


t 


vo 


o 


r- 




r» 


CM 




o 


r» 




in 


co 




VO 




in 


VO 


en 






in 


rH 


CM 


rH 




on 






ft* 


•* 










*fc 




ft* 


fc 








ft* 










iH 


ft* 




vo 


rH 










CM 




CO 


rH 








CM 










X 


<H 








































fa 










































00 




















































































i 


VO 




rH 


ID 




r^ 


^« 




co 




r- 


r^ 


r> 




<T\ 


cn 


CO 


00 


ON 




r- 


O 




CM 


VO 




m 


00 




in 




vo 


r-{ 


<T> 




rH 


^f 


vo 


CO 


00 




ON 


^f 




VO 


«tf 




rH 


co 




in 




in 


VO 


CM 






rH 


rH 


CM 


iH 




H 


iH 






H 




rH 






ft* 

CM 






ft* 
rH 








ft* 

CM 










X 


rH 








































fa 










































r^ 




















































































i 


*r 




00 


m 




CM 


«tf 




00 




in 


CM 


<T\ 




r^ 


00 


VO 


00 


in 




r^ 


t^ 




VO 


(N 




r^ 


m 




CO 




CO 


r> 


VO 




rH 


^r 


in 


r-^ 


ON 




on 


on 




r- 


t-\ 




<* 


CM 




VO 




^r 


r-{ 


CM 






CM 


rH 


CM 


>H 




rH 


Mb 




•h 


ft* 










ft* 




ft* 


K 








«i 








w 




on 




^« 


rH 










CM 




m 


rH 








CM 








u 


X 








































M 


fa 








































Eh 










































C/> 










































w 


vo 








































Eh 


r» 








































< 


1 








































En 


IT) 


vo 




** 


cm 




** 


CM 




on 




vo 


rH 


VO 




r~ 


00 


CO 


CM 


rH 


W 


r» 


VO 




o 


CM 




on 


^* 




*t 




r~- 


*tf 


in 




CM 


cr> 


** 


rH 


ON 




on 


on 




*r 


CM 




ON 


rH 




VO 




CM 


1" 


CM 






r» 


rH 


CM 


rH 


55 


H 


fe 




ft* 


ft* 










■> 




■> 


■> 








ft* 








O 




on 




in 


rH 










CM 




CM 


rH 








•H 








M 


X 








































Eh 


fa 








































H 










































W 










































o 










































CXi 










































w 










































IH 










































Q 
















CM 


























* 
















>1 




PO 


M 






CO 














Z 
















c 




*-v 









rH 


4-1 












o 





















JJ 


•H 






id 


M 












J 






rH 










rH 




c 


V-l 






•H 


3 












w 






(0 










CD 




CD 


w 






M 















fa 






a 

•H 








9* 

4J 




VM 
4-> 




e 

4-> 

o 

•H 


a 

a 

CO 






4J 

CD 
M 


U 

u 

















rH 


c 






M 




M 


4-> T 


c 




n 





•H 
















,»» 


3 




CM 


3 




3 


M 


c 


•H 




CO 


VM 


M 




*tf 












00 


£ 














a 


•H 






<D 


CD 


CD 




>i 






CO 






tH 


c 




4J 

u 


u 




U 




u 


M 


CO 




u 

C 


XI 


3 




4J 

rH 






rH 

id 






M 


•H 




3 


rH 




rH 







c 




CD 


4-> 


in 




•H 


^" 




•H 






(1) 









id 




id 


m 




•H 




V-l 


M 






3 


>H 




M 






> 


TJ 




u 


a 




a 





c 


V-l 




0) 


a 


c 




CT> 


id 




4-> 









CD 






•H 




•H 


•H 





id 




VM 





•H 






•H 












(Q 




rH 


o 




u 


V-l 


•H 


0) 




C 


u 






VM 


M 




M 






CO 


3 




id 


•HCM 


•H 


<D 4J 


X 









rH 







4J 




CD 






+J 


U 




a 


C 


M 


c 


a io 






u 


M 


10 CO 








4-> 






rH 







•H 


3 





3 


3 


e 


c 









4J 


rH 


id 


>1 




VM 






3 


id 




o 


s 


c 


s 


M 


M 







4J 


•H 


4J 


id 


CD 


M 




id 






•O 






•H 




id 









•H 




c 


M 


•H 


•H 


rH 


3 










id 


CO CM 


c 


c 


0) 


c 


C M- 


4J 




0) 


CD 


3 


M 


CX 


•m 




c 






*-^ 


4-> 




a 


•H 


E 


•H 


•H 


c 


mm 


E 


a 


CT4J 

















C 4J 


s 




0) 






•H 


O 


4J 


a 


D 


U 




M 


M 




•H 






in 


Id 


u 




>i«0 


>1 


TJ 







U 


rH 


CO 


id 


M 


CD 


CD 




4J 






4-1 


TJ 


o 


c 


4J 


CO 


4J 


a) 


>1 


> 


3 


4-> 






CD 


4J 


4-> 


CO 


U 






to 


c 





•H 


rH 


•H 


rH 


W X) 


a) 





4J 


c 


M 


■P 


VM 


VM 


c 


•H 






CD 


CD U 




•H 


e 


•H 


3 


"-' 


« c 


CD 


•H 





VM 


id 


id 


M 


> 






u 


VM 




co 


3 




3 


O 








Cft 






id 









c 






u 


ai 




H 


IT 




IT 


u 




c 






rH 


r-i 




•D 


•D 


5 









id 


to 




<d 

(0 


VM 




vw 


id 






•H 




rH 

id 


id 

CO 


id 

CO 




CD 
4-> 


CD 
4-> 


CO 


o 






>i 


>i 




to 










M 




4-> 




•H 


CO 


CO 




U 


O 


CO 


>1 






c 


c 




•H 








CD 




id 




M 


•H 


•H 




•H 


•H 


CD 


c 














e 


id 




(0 


XI 




X) 




4-> 


E 


E 




> 


> 


•H 









tH 


rH 




(0 


<D 




CD 


e 









0) 


CO 


CO 




c 


c 


M 


rH 






<u 


CD 




•H 


rH 




rH 


a 




V-l 




M 


•H 


•H 










3 


CD 






fa 


fa 




o 


fa 




fa 


Z 




fa 




fa 


a 


a 




u 


u 


r3 


fa 



ON 




















r^ 




















i 


00 


ON 




ON 




o 


vo 






00 


on 


vo 




o 




CN 


in 






r^ 


on 






■H 






^r 






ON 














*. 






r-\ 














rH 






X 




















fa 




















CO 




















i 




















I 

r- 


CO 


00 




VO 




in 


CN 






r^ 


in 


VD 




ON 




co 


rH 






ON 


00 












CO 






rH 














iH 






>i 




















fa 




















r^ 


















c 


l 




















•H 


VD 




*r 




CO 




ON 


CM 




4-> 


r- 


o 


00 




O 




^ 


in 




<0 


ON 


m 






CN 






in 




H 


iH 


V£> 












rH 




3 
4J 


* 


















•H 


fa 


















<o 
o 


VD 


















<D 


I 


















u 

4J 


IT) 


co 


cr> 




00 




o 


^ 




J-l W 


r- 


ON 


vo 




<tf 




in 


CN 




4J 


ON 


co 






(N 






CN 




a ^ 


iH 














rH 




CU 3 
fa 


X 


















u 


fa 
















to 

4J 

V-l 

o 


mary 

ior 

port 


















a e m cu 


















<D 


3 CU fa 


















fa 




















3 rH 
















^f 


fa 4. 






** 










H 


PQ 


V-l O 
3 --rH 






>1 










•H 


< 


W 4-> 






+1 


c 








(0 


U U 4J W 






•H 











^ 




V-l -H 






Vj 


•H 










ta. 


rH 3 4-> 









+J 








>1 


4J 


(C <o 






x: 


<D 








4-> 


c 


au 4J 






4J 


4-> 




4-> 




C 


a> 


•H CO 






3 


•H 




3 




3 


a 


o cu 






<< 


iH 












4-> 


•H£ ' 








•H 




.C 




u 


V-l 


C 4J J£ 






.C 


& 




4J 






<0 


3 V-i 






4-> 


(0 




•H 




Di 


as <*-t cu 






3 


4= 




» 




C 


cu 


rH 




^r 





CU 




"—» 




■H 


Q 


- u 




c 


X 


fa 








T3 




^ CU 













iH 




3 


CU 


U O >i 




(0 


<o 


<0 




•H 




rH 


o 


CU -h 4J 




•H 


•H 


•H 




(fl 




o 


•H 


rH 4-1 C 




M 


c 


c 




1-3^ 


c 


H 


U *H 3 




fa 


M 


M 






^-» 


•H 





O 









O 




>i c 


"*■' 


fa 4-> 




CU 


4-1 


VMf 


4J 


o 






V-l CU 




4J 


•H 


•H 




c 


•rH 


c 





3 > 




<0 


H 


H 


u 


3 4-1 





O 


-h U 




4J 


<o 


(0 


CU 





«J 


•H 


W U 4J 10 




CO 


U 


CJ 4- 


U£ 


4J 


<H 


(0 -H 










c 







CO 


OHU O 













<D 





V-l 


XI 


C 


(0 4J C 




+J 


4J 


4-> C 


JJ 


a 





(0 


Oi CO 03 
















u 


u 


•H -H V-l 




»D 


"D 


•D 




*U 




a 


fa 


O C fa 




0) 


0) 


CU 




0> 








•H -H 







4J 


4-> 




O 




-D 


c 


c e c 




c 


4-> 


4-> 




C 




0) 


(0 


3T5 (0 




CU 


•H 


•H 




CU 




4-1 


CO 2 




4J 


g 


g 




4-> 




c 








C 


g 


g 




c 




rtJ 








0) 










01 




M 


• 


• • • 




CO 


u 


u 




en 




o 


rH 


cn co ^ 



MISDEMEANOR PROSECUTIONS 

Misdemeanor crime is a problem of many dimensions. Some 
misdemeanors are acts which though serious are extremely 
common. Others have the same elements as felonies, but are 
not serious enough to be treated as felonies. 

Finally, there is a sizeable portion of misdemeanors 
which represents a societal equivalent of the human response 
"there ought to be a law" or "what if everyone did that". 

The trouble with the latter group of misdemeanors is 
that there are many such laws, and that a remarkable number 
of people do what society has proscribed. 

Even "low order" misdemeanors are serious. A petty act 
repeated by literally thousands of people becomes a big 
problem. There are more arrests for public drunkenness in a 
year than for all felonies combined. 

Misdemeanors tend to be quality of life crimes in that 
when allowed to thrive they can render large segments of the 
city unpleasant. They are often economically significant in 
that unpleasant commercial districts do not draw affluent 
consumers . 

The prosecution of misdemeanor crime is a problem of 
volume. The Municipal Court can only try a few hundred cases 
per year, while there were 36,213 non-traffic misdemeanor 
arrests in 1978-79. Misdemeanor constitute numerically about 
80% of the office caseload, but command only about 20% of our 
attorney resource. 



18 



Assigning additional deputies to misdemeanor 
prosecutions would not be productive. First, local funds are 
simply not available. Second, it would not be wise to 
undermine felony staffing. Third, and most important, the 
misdemeanor portion of the criminal justice system is 
operating at full capacity, and adding attorneys without 
adding courts, judges and jails would have no effect. The 
table of misdemeanor statistics which follows verifies this 
last point, while arrests have increased by almost 40% over 
the past four years, the "system" has increased convictions 
by only 9%. 

Faced with this reality, a district attorney cannot hope 
to control misdemeanor crime, he can only respond to it. 
Because of the seriousness of misdemeanor crime, the nature 
of that response is most important. 

This administration responds in two ways. First, there 
are priority responses and second, there are containment 
responses. Priority is given to misdemeanors where the 
criminal act has the elements of a felony but where evidence 
or witness testimony will only support misdemeanor 
prosecution. Misdemeanors which involve weapons, violence or 
significant property loss also receive priority as do 
misdemeanors which are part of a long history of criminality. 
Containment prosecutions respond to specific problems. If 
crime of a certain type or in a certain location is on the 
increase, it can often be brought back down by targeted 
prosecutions . 



19 



The best solution, however, lies in the development of 
alternatives to criminal prosecution to low-grade 
misdemeanors. This administration has fully supported 
Neighborhood Dispute Resolution Boards, arbitration, 
diversion and citation hearings as more effective mechanisms 
for dealing with many misdemeanor crimes. These all are 
important efforts. 



20 



f- 
I 

00 

r» 



X 

fc 



r- 

iH 

in 



rH 



o 



o 

iH 
<N 

co 



<T\ 


VD 


o 


H 


iH 


*r 


r* 


co 


r^ 


in 


VO 


CN 


CO 


CO 


rH 


rH 


vo 


r^ 



co 



co 



CO 

r- 

I 

c* 



En 



o 

CM 
CO 

in 



<r> r- 

r-t H 

C^ *tf 

ȣ> CN 



(N 


V£> 


CO 


in 


«x> 


in 


VD 


0> 


H 


CO 


CO 


^ 


<Ti 


H 


CM 


^r 


CO 


m 



CO 



CO 



to 

SZ 
O 



w 

CM 

o 

Eh 
« 
D 

o 
u 

►J 
< 

Cm 
M 

U 

M 

5Z 
D 
£ 



I 

vo 
r- 






i 

in 






C* 



rH (N 

in in 



«£> 


CO 


CN 


in 


o 


r- 


CN 


in 


r- 


CO 


r» 


r-» 


CO 


rH 


rH 


CO 


00 


*i< 



CN 



CO 



in 



CN 



























< 


























CN 




rH 


O 


(N 


















4J 




o 


*3* 


CPi 






CN 


o> 


r^ 


O 


r» 


V£> 


U 




o 


CO 


CO 






CO 


rH 


^o 


in 


en 


in 


O 




fe 


^ 








^ 


T* 


rH 


CN 


r> 


rH 


a 




rH 


«5f 








* 


w 






•. 


>. 


cu 




H 


c 



•H 




CU 
U 

c 


M 

3 
•n 


in 

rH 


CN 

CO 

c 






«x> 


H 


CO 

3 
CO 

4J 






4-1 




* cu 


C t3 


c 









to 




V-l 






10 




C 3 


•H CU 





•H 






cu 




3 






o 




3 H 


U 


•r-t 


-u 






u 




O 






•H 




U «H 


s: 3 


+J 


CD 






c 




U 






X 




C 


4-> TD 


U 


rH 






cu 




u 




(0 







f© • H 


•H CU 


CU 









u 








c 


4J 




c 


5 VH 


CO 


•H 






cu 




rH 







c 




f0 CU 






> 






»H 




CO 




•r-4 


M 




x: 


CP co 


t 








c 




CU 




4J 






4J -U 


C CD 


cj 


u 











•r-i 




CO 


^ 




•H 


•H -H 


• 


•H 






u 




U 




rH 


<D 




x: h 


> c 


Pm 


U-4 










•H 







O 




*- cu 


•H 




«H 




CO 


4-» 




C 


'D 


•H 


C 




T3 


U rH 





(0 




to 


c 


to 


3 


0) 


> 


<0 




0) C 


T3 CU 


+J 


t-i 




CU 


cu 


CF 


£ 


10 




c 


CO 


^D 3 


U-l 




+J 




J-l 


£ 


c 




3 


<D 


•H 


c 





CO 


4J 






a 


cu 


•H 


*. 


CJ 


T3 


T3 





u ty 


CO U 


c 


u 




Qu 


rH 


»-t 


^ 


U 





i-l 


•H 


c 


CU -H 


CO 


cu 




3 


4J 


(0 


u 


< 


U 


O 


4J 


(U -H 


rH IW 


3 


x: 


c 


CO 


■P 


CU 


cu 








u 


rH > .* »*-J 


CO 


jj 


u 




CU 


S 


rH 


10 


rH 


rH 


CO 


O-H 


u to 


u 











CO 




u 


■u 


<0 


CO 


M 


•H >_i 


cu u 


3 




5 


4J 




c 




c 


c 


U 


IH 


.c T) 


U 4-> 


CM 


rH 


CO 




rH 







CO 


0) 





c 


CU 






rH 




CO 


CO 


•H 


• • 


13 


Cm 


rj 


M 


> 






< 


CO 


c 


•H 


4J 


w 


c 
















cu 





J-l 


(0 


u 


0) 
















•H 


•H 


+J 


X5 


K 


U-l 
















M 


+J 


CU 


O 


D 


cu 
















3 


o 


H 


u 


O 


Q 
















•^ 


s 


04 


a* 


CO 



cm 

i 

CO 

r- 

fa 



co 


VO 


CM 


LO 


VO 


rH 


CM 


00 


CO 


CM 


CM 


VO 


VO 


co 


CM 


VO 


O 


r~ 


iH 


iH 


CO 


CO 




i-l 


iH 



CM 

\ 

CM 
CO 



CM 

\ 

CM 



CO 

i 

r- 
r- 

fa 



** 


CM 


r- 


^ 


r- 


CO 


CO 


VO 


CO 


CM 


in 


CM 


rH 


in 


CO 


rH 


CM 


Tf 


r-» 


iH 


CO 


CM 






rH 



O 


r^ 


■^r 


CM 


CO 


CO 


rH 


H 


o 


o 


VO 


CM 


r^ 




rH 


CM 







w 

fa 
Z 

o 

z 
< 
w 

fa 

Q 
CO 



U 

M 
fa 
fa 

I 

z 
o 
z 



i 

vo 

fa 



VO 

I 

in 

fa 



CM 


CM 


*tf 


rH 


CM 


r- 


CO 


CM 


rH 


<tf 


vo 


rH 


CO 


CM 


o 


CO 


VO 


rH 




CM 


rH 


\ 


rH 


CO 


* 


fe. 




*. 


•» 


rH 


\ 


* 


VO 


CO 




CO 


CM 


VO 


r- 


CM 


CM 


rH 










vo 





in 
vo 

CM 

in 

CM 



rH 

in 

CO 

in 



in 
in 



CO 

rH 

in 



CM 
O 
VO 



VO 



CO 


t 


CO 


rH 


\ 


00 


CM 


^ 


^r 


o 















T5 


^-v 
















CD 


•D 
















+J 


CD 
















O 


-U 








• 








•H 


U 








a 








> 


•H 








a 


• 






c 


> 








m 


a. 








u 


c 










+j 


<a 






\ 


u 








3 








TD 


\ 











j-j 






CD 


T3 








JC 


a) 






■P 


CD 








4J 


jj 






+J 


■P 








•rH 


4-1 


>. 




•H 


J-> 








3= 


(0 


rH 




3 
D 1 


•rH 

3 






•D 


•D 


•D 


•H 




U 


cr 






<D 


CD 


CD 


3 




< 


u 


10 




(0 


CO 


(0 


r^ 




*— 


< 


c 




3 


to 


(0 








•"- ' 







O 


•H 


•H 


vw 




4-> 




•H 


W 


O 


E 


e 







V-i 


>i 


4J 


4J 


< 


CO 


(0 




CO 


3 


M 


o 


CO 




•H 


•H 


CO 


rH 





3 


•H 


CD 


• 


Q 


a 


(0 


(0 


U 


■"3 


> 


u 


4-1 






CD 


•H 






c 


u 


CD 






rH 


r-l 









< 


Q 






fa 


Eh 






u 



GRAND JURY 

State law provides for two Grand Juries in San Francisco. 
One Grand Jury meets at City Hall and its primary function is 
to review the operation of municipal government in San 
Francisco. The other Grand Jury meets at the Hall of Justice 
and its function is to hear criminal cases. During the fiscal 
year 1977-78 the criminal investigation Grand Jury heard 359 
witnesses, and returned 34 indictments containing 402 charges. 
The indictments involved 101 defendants. 

The majority of the criminal cases brought to the Grand 
Jury involve crimes wherein the witnesses are very young or 
have been threatened and thus are reluctant to testify, complex 
cases requiring lengthy hearings and extensive use of the 
subpoena power, and examinations into allegations of official 
corruption. In this regard, the Special Prosecutions Unit of 
the District Attorney's Office has made extensive use of the 
investigatory and indictment functions of the Grand Jury. In 
the past two fiscal years, the Grand Jury returned many 
noteworthy indictments following investigations into the Police 
Pawnshop Detail, the notorious encounter parlors, the 
Redevelopment Agency, and indictments were returned in the 
police "sting" operation and in the Golden Dragon murders. 

In November of 1978, the California Supreme Court ruled 
that persons indicted by the Grand Jury were entitled to a 
post-indictment preliminary hearing before standing trial. 
This ruling substantially eliminates the Grand Jury as a means 
of charging 



23 



persons with crime; however, the Grand Jury remains a major 
investigative force because of its powers to subpoena witnesses 
and records and to obtain testimony for limited use in later 
trials. It is the policy of the District Attorney's Office to 
continue to use the Grand Jury to investigate business crime, 
consumer fraud, official corruption, and criminal conspiracies. 



24 



JUVENILE DIVISION 

The Juvenile Division of the District Attorney's office is 
located in the Youth Guidance Center. It has responsibility 
for prosecuting juvenile offenders whose cases are referred to 
it by the Juvenile Probation Department. Until and unless 
cases are referred to the District Attorney by probation 
officers, no charges can be filed. The probation officer, 
under the Juvenile Court Law, has an independent investigatory 
function and a quasi-judicial role which allows him to screen 
out cases which he does not deem worthy of court action. 
Between two thirds and three quarters of all juvenile criminal 
arrests are handled informally by probation officers and, 
consequently, do not reach the District Attorney for 
prosecution. This procedure is substantially different from 
the way adult offenders are handled in the normal criminal 
courts. Juvenile court proceedings are closed. 

In 1978, there were 5804 arrests of juveniles referred to 
the Juvenile Probation Department; charges were filed against 
1949. Approximately 410 juveniles were sent to semi-secure and 
secure placements (Log Cabin Ranch School, Hidden Valley Ranch 
School, and the California Youth Authority.) The remainder 
were sent to out-of-home placements (group homes, foster homes, 
etc.) or were returned to their homes. The proportion of 
offenders committed to secure and semi-secure placements will 
probably decrease in 1979 as a result of the closing of Hidden 
Valley Ranch School. 

The Juvenile Court's lack of sentencing options is a 
serious problem which has gotten progressively worse at the 
same time 



that the character of juvenile crime has become more 
sophisticated. There are now no disciplinary facilities, other 
than the restrictive California Youth Authority, for girls or for 
boys under 15 (the girls' center and Hidden Valley Ranch School 
having been closed in 1977 and 1978 respectively) . There are also 
no remaining community service work programs which will take most 
juvenile offenders. The lack of semi-secure placements and 
community work programs, when coupled with the judiciary's 
reticence about sentencing all but the most confirmed recidivist 
offenders to the California Youth Authority, has created an 
alarming situation which lends some credence to the continual 
allegations that the Youth Guidance Center is a revolving door 
facility which fails to engender respect from either the juvenile 
offenders themselves or the police. 



26 



PSYCHIATRIC COURT 
The primary functions of psychiatric court deputies are as 
follows: 

A. To represent the People in conservatorship and ancillary 
proceedings as required by Welfare and Institutions Code 
Section 5114. 

B. To investigate allegations that persons are mentally 
disordered or addicted to narcotics or other habit 

forming drugs and, when appropriate, to take action under 
applicable Penal or Welfare and Institutions Code 
provisions. 

C. To interview and advise persons requesting information on 
psychiatric facilities and legal procedures relating to 
the problems of mental illness, chronic alcoholism, and 
drug addiction. 

In addition, the Psychiatric Division serves as a clearing 
house for information regarding mental illness, mental deficiency, 
alcoholism, drug and narcotic addiction. Direct referrals are 
received from practically all the local and private agencies 
dealing with social problems, and numerous interviews are held 
with private citizens regarding their relevant problems. Home 
visits are made; background information on cases in progress is 
gathered. 

Conservatorship proceedings (under the Lanterman-Petr is- 
Short Act) are insituted to provide care, supervision, and where 
appropriate, institutional commitment for persons who, as 



27 



a result of mental disorder, are unable to provide for the 
basic personal needs of food, clothing or shelter. 
Conservatorship is often opposed by patients, either by 
contested hearing, a writ of habeas corpus, a jury trial on the 
issue of "grave disability" or by a review hearing. The People 
are charged with the responsibility of presenting evidence to 
support the recommendations of psychiatrists and 
conservatorship investigators that a conservator is needed to 
assist a patient in providing for basic needs. 

Citizen complaints concerning mental illness, alcoholism 
and drug addiction are investigated by a psychologist employed 
as a psychiatric investigator in the District Attorney's 
Office. In addition to his duties with the public, he assists 
with investigation and preparation of cases where psychiatric 
background is shown. In misdemeanor cases where defendants, 
because of their mental condition, have been diverted from 
normal channels of the criminal justice system to hospitals or 
local psychiatric facilities, detailed follow-up investigation 
is conducted by the psychiatric investigator. Additionally, 
the investigator assists in the investigations to locate 
relatives or other interested persons who are willing and able 
to assume responsibility for the patient and arrange private 
psychiatric care or hospitalizatin without the necessity of 
court proceedings. 

The increase in the number of these cases, especially the 
qreat increase in the number of contested matters which are 



28 



very time consuming both in preparation and in court, will 
require the District Attorney's Office to expand this 
division. A full time attorney and the services of additional 
attorneys on part time assignment will be necessary. 



PSYCHIATRIC DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 

1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 

Notices of certification filed 581 541 620 966 
(14-day intensive treatment) 

New petitions for conservatorship 403 450 561 693 
filed (does not include renewals) 

Conservatorships granted 

Writs of Habeas Corpus filed 

Writs of Habeas Corpus withdrawn 

Writs of Habeas Corpus granted 

Writs of Habeas Corpus denied 



SOURCE: Clerk, Superior Court Psychiatric Division 



180 


172 


228 


237 


N/A 


54 


154 


146 


N/A 


18 


72 


63 


N/A 


6 


16 


13 


N/A 


30 


66 


70 



29 



INVESTIGATION 

District Attorney Investigators perform all post-arrest 
misdemeanor investigations, prepare demonstrable evidence for 
trial, support the Police Bureau of Inspectors in large or 
complex cases and perform a variety of witness services in 
special cses . 

In addition, the Investigators are increasingly involved in 
original investigations of economic crime, public corruption, 
and cases where the police are ill-prepared or inappropriate. 
District Attorney Investigators respond to all incidents of 
shooting by or of a police officer. 

New emphasis has been placed on training and on 
professionalism of criminal investigators. The investigative 
bureau has been reorganized under the direction of a former 
career police detective on assignment from the San Francisco 
Police Department. Regular investigative training classes and 
weapons qualification have been instituted. The scope of 
investigative work has been broadened considerably as 
investigations extend to areas heretofore not considered within 
the purview of District Attorney investigators. Investigators 
have been involved in the full spectrum of investigative 
functions, from interviews to surveillance and arrests. 

San Francisco County District Attorney investigators make 
independent investigations and routinely work with police and 
federal investigators in a smooth and effective fashion. 
Though it is impossible for manpower reasons to work on every 
major crime, witness and evidence problems are minimized when a 



30 



court seasoned investigator is involved early in the case. 
Because of court experience and the resultant familiarity with 
criminal law and the rules of evidence, the District Attorney 
investigator plays an important role in improving the case for 
later courtroom presentation. 

Our experience with the effectiveness of investigative 
efforts in improving cases supports the findings of a 1975 Rand 
Corporation study which indicated that investigative resources 
are most effectively deployed in support of prosecution. They 
found that investigators are generally better at developing 
cases than making arrests. 

District Attorney investigators exist as a law enforcement 
agency independent of the police. It is in this capacity that 
we have established a stand-by plan which responds to all 
incidents which involve a shooting of or by a police officer. 



31 



THE CONSUMER FRAUD/ECONOMIC CRIME UNIT 

The Consumer Fraud/Economic Crime Unit's charge is three 
fold. It provides consumers and legitimate businesses with 
mediation services, education and protection. 

The San Francisco District Attorney's Office provides a 
range of consumer services which is unique in the State of 
California. This is necessitated by the fact that there is no 
other local agency charged with consumer protection 
responsibility. 

In addition to the traditional activities of civil and 
criminal litigation of California's consumer laws, the Consumer 
Fraud/Economic Crime Unit engages in mediation, outreach and 
education activities. 

The unit was organized in March, 1976. The staff of the 
Unit is made up of attorneys, investigators, complaint 
mediation investigators, an accountant, a community outreach 
project, and a Small Claims Project. At all times there are 
staff members available who speak Chinese and Spanish. The 
staff is supplemented by up to 30 interns who volunteer time to 
work with the Unit. Much equipment and labor are donated by 
businesses to help in the community and outreach efforts. 

The Unit has been able to reach people and communities 
which have never been served by local government. In addition, 
there is a continuining increase in requests for service and 
information from local community and business groups as well as 
referrals from the San Francisco Pol ice Department. 



32 



Mediation 

Complaint mediation provides a means whereby a dispute 
between a consumer and a business can be resolved without 
resorting to the courts. The mediators in the Consumer Fraud 
Unit act as impartial go-betweens in an attempt to help the 
consumer and the business work out a solution to the problem. 
These services are directed primarily at protecting and 
educating those people who have often been the victims of 
fraudulent, unscrupulous, and unfair business 
practices. . .namely , the poor, non-English speaking, and the 
elderly. 

At little cost to the taxpayer because much of the work is 
performed by student volunteers from local universities and law 
schools, the complaint resolution staff investigates and 
mediates over 300 individual consumer complaints each month. 
The amounts involved in the individual disputes range from a 
few dollars to several thousand. The complaints include 
problems with auto repair services, false and misleading 
advertising, home repairs, and even a complaint by an 
eleven-year-old boy who wanted his 20 cent refund for returning 
pop bottles. 

In many instances, individual complaints are resolved 
quickly with just a few telephone calls. Other complaints, 
however, take weeks of careful research and persistent follow 
up before a satisfactory resolution is obtained. 



33 



From fiscal year 1974-75 to fiscal 1976-77 there was a 155% 
increase in the monies recovered under mediation. 
Specifically, in 1976 , student volunteers handled 1980 consumer 
complaints and recovered $55,509.47 in goods and services for 
consumers. In 1977, 3309 complaints were resolved and 
$99,970.02 was recovered. In 1978 the mediation staff handled 
3509 compalints and recovered more than twice the amount from 
the previous year, $201,735.84. Since January of this year, 
volunteers have mediated 1417 complaints and returned 
$50,921.19 to consumers. The spirited efforts of the complaint 
mediation staff have resulted in recovering over $400,000.00 to 
date. This innovative approach to dispute resolution has 
enabled San Franciscans to obtain immediate and much-needed 
assistance without burdening the already over-crowded court 
system. 

The majority of the costs for running the mediation section 
has been supplied federally (from grant awards totalling 
$80,000 and through CETA funding, $14,333.00). The total cost 
in salaries to city taxpayers for these mediation services 
since 1976 has been $80,000.00. The worth of in-kind donation 
of time from volunteer students over the past four years is 
estimated at $222,600.00. The figures dramatically speak for 
themselves. At a cost of $80,000.00, city taxpayers received 
over $400,000.00 in return. 
Complaint-Mobile 

In the past two years, the Complaint-Mobile, which was 
originally funded through a grant by the Law Enforcement 



34 



Assistance Administration, visited over 300 sites, stopping in 
all districts in the City. Over 1500 complaint forms have been 
handed out by the trilingual student interns who staff the 
Complaint-Mobile, and over 800 referrals have been made to 
residents who needed some form of assistance. The 
Complaint-Mobile is the only such program operating out of a 
District Attorney's office in the country. 
Education 

As a result of the Complaint-Mobile's visibility, many 
community groups and schools began requesting more information 
about their legal rights. To meet this need, the mediation 
staff began an energetic out-reach program that included 
lectures to classes and community groups, educational public 
service announcements about consumer rights, a consumer 
newsletter, and special self-help legal workshops. 

In the past two years, the mediation staff has presented 
120 lectures, over 300 consumer alert public service 
announcements, over 100 consumer radio talk shows, and 
distributed over 700 consumer newsletters per month to 
individuals and community groups about their legal rights. 

Other specialized programs include the recent Auto Repair 
workshop presented by the mediation staff's Auto Task Force. 
Twenty percent of the complaints mediated relate to the 
automobile and this workshop offered consumer information to 
San Franciscans who were the victims of auto fraud. 



35 



The Bayview-Hunter ' s Point Festival for Justice, held in 
February 1979, provided comprehensive legal workshops to this 
community. Skits, video tapes, and slide shows have also been 
produced in Chinese and Spanish about different areas of the 
law such as how to use the Small Claims Court and information 
pertaining to landlord/tenant matters. Services to seniors 
include the organization of the Traveling Troupe, a senior 
drama company that will present live programs on Small Claims 
Court to senior groups throughout the city, and an extensive 
lecture program on consumer law to seniors at their nutrition 
centers and senior clubs. Finally, the mediation staff has an 
ongoing Small Claims Court Education project, the result of a 
grant from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 
As part of the project's out-reach efforts, the staff present 
bi-weekly workshops at Hastings College of the Law, using 
audio-visual tools and a lecture to teach people about the 
court. In the first eight months of this program the Small 
Claims Court project has counselled 840 people by phone, and 
300 litigants in the office and in the field. 

The Consumer Fraud/Economic Crime Unit's out-reach programs 
have helped to establish concrete working relations with legal 
and community agencies throughout the city, such as the Charles 
Houston Bar Association, the San Francisco Bar Association, the 
San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation, Legal 
Assistance for the Elderly, Chinese for Affirmative Action, the 
Commission on Aging, and many others. These contacts have 



36 



generated an active referral network from the various 
community- based organizations to the District Attorney's office 
Litigation 

The legal and investigative staffs have pursued a number of 
cases with the goal of correcting problems in the 
market-place. With regard to the civil lawsuits filed by this 
Unit, the aim is to seek injunctive relief such that unlawful, 
unfair or fraudulent practices are terminated. Restitution is 
sought for victims, as well as civil penalties as a sanction. 

The suits filed by the Unit demonstrate that the District 

Attorney is willing to enforce the law against all violators, 

giant or small. As a result of civil and criminal cases filed 

in fiscal 1976-77, the Unit collected court ordered restitution 

totalling $192,392.05 for consumers and collected $510,427.98 

in penalties, costs, and fines. In fiscal 1977-78, consumers 

received $246,562.96 through court ordered restitution and 
$156,739.57 was collected in penalties, costs, and fines. In 

fiscal 1978-79, the Unit collected $346,436.16 through court 
ordered restitution for consumers and $176,149.27 in penalties, 
costs and fines. 

The Unit has placed emphasis on frauds in housing and home 
improvement, automobile services, mail and home solicitations, 
professional services, food, health and nutrition, business and 
advertising practices. Most of the more than eighty matters 
either filed or under active investigation for possible filing 
may be classified in one of these categories. 



37 



I 

00 

r- 

fa 



oo 

r- 

I 

r- 
r- 

X 
fa 



in 


^r 


o> 


vo 


iH 


H 


r~ 


o m in 


CN 


vo 


^T 


CO 


00 


ro 


cr> 


CN iH 


iH 


CN 


H 


«tf 


r- 


CN 


C* 




ht 


•h 


^ 


ta 


h 


«k 






co 


r*» 


VD 


VO 


vo 


ro 






in 


co 


r« 


** 


VO 








^ 


rH 


iH 


CO 


tH 








vi- 
















ce 


r- 


CO 


CO 


r» 


** 


H 


vo r- <Ti 


*3< 


r^ 


^ 


vo 


*5T 


vo 


CN 


CN rH 


co 


VO 


VO 


in 


rH 


VD 


00 




*. 


h» 


*. 


h 


w 


a, 






in 


*3« 


cr» 


vo 


VO 


ro 






00 


CN 


vo 


CN 


VD 
H 









v> 



2 
D 



fa 
U 

U 
H 

s 
o 

o 
u 
fa 
\ 

Q 

D 

g 

fa 
fa 



D 
CO 

2 

O 

u 



co 

u 

M 
Eh 
CO 
M 

E-< 

< 

Eh 
CO 

fa 
O 

2 
O 
CO 

M 

fa 
< 
fa 

S 

o 
u 



r- 

I 

VD 

r- 

fa 



ro 


•^ 


CN 


CO 


vo 


o> 


cn ro cri 


ro 


ro 


CO 


a\ 


rH 


in 


CO ^ r-1 


c* 


ro 


in 


CTi 


O 


<3< 




* 


ta. 


«» 


*. 


«. 






CO 


«tf 


<Xt 


vo 


CO 






CO 


vo 


00 


r^ 








vo 


CN 


ro 










</> 














in 


«* 


vo 


in 


r^ 






<T\ 


o\ 


CO 


o 


CO 






CN 


o 


r» 


00 


«a« 






fe 


fe 


«. 


*t 


h» 






rH 


r» 


CO 


r-^ 


r-\ 






T 


^ 


in 


VO 








rH 














</> 














00 




ro 


in 


VO 






00 




00 


f-\ 


vo 






CN 


ro 


<T» 


r- 


CO 






•w 


\ 


fe 


*. 


fe 






VO 


C 


in 


cr> 


H 






vo 




vo 


** 









</> 















c 






>1 















rH 








•H 






c 








+J 















o 






•o 














a) 








4J 






u 








M 




CO 


<D 




CO 




3 




4-> 


'D 




•M 









CO 


U 




CO 




U 







O 













U 


1 

4J 




U 




3 




fe 


M 




*. 









10 


a 




(0 




•C -— 




0> 







a 




■P C 




•H 


u 




•H 




•H 




4J 


i 




+J 




5-H 




rH 


i 




H 




4-) 




ro 


c 




rO 


c 


c ro 




c 





• • 


c 





-H 




0> 


•H 


'O 


ai 


•H 


•H T3 


• • 


a 


4-> 


<D 


a 


4J 


4J (U 


T3 




3 


+J 




3 


3 e 


<V 


h 


+J 


O 


* 


+J 


+j w 


T3 


CO 


•H 


0) 


CO 


•H 


•H 


U 


<u 


4J 


rH 


9 


4J 


+J 


ro 


c 


CO 


rH 


c 


CO 


CO 


S 


•H 


0) 


O 


•H 


(1) 


a> 


< 


fa 


fa 


U 


fa 


fa 


fa 



T3 
<D 
> 

u 

0) 

fa 

CO 

4J 

c 

•H 

ro 

rH 

a 

8 

U 



0) 
4J 
(0 

•H 

e 

CO 

0) 
CO 

ro 
U 






(0 
C 



•h -h e 

VM > -H 
•H M 

CO U U 

Q) 

CO 

ro 

U 



M 



4J 

ro 
tji 

•H 
4J 
CO 
0) 

> 

c 



17 

3 
ro 

5-1 
fa 

U 

01 

e 

3 
CO 

c 
o 
u 



JO 

o 
o 

ro 
•TJ 

CO 


r-i 
u 
ro 
U 



fa 
U 
fa 

O 
CO 



FAMILY SUPPORT BUREAU 

The Family Support Bureau (FSB) was created in January 1976 
to comply with Federal and State laws charging the District 
Attorney with the responsibility of establishing and enforcing 
child support obligations in all cases where children receive 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ; and in any case 
when requested to do so by the custodial parent. These 
mandated functions produce revenue for San Francisco's General 
Fund and reduce the City's cost of providing welfare to 
families. 

The FSB is a collection agent and as such its success is 
measured in terms of dollars collected. The table of 
collections which follows shows that collections have increased 
by 16.2% from 1977-78 to 1978-79. This increase was realized 
with no increase in staff. 

FSB collections do not accrue directly to the County. 
Welfare collections are used to reduce the cost of AFDC , most 
of which is not local. Non-welfare collections are returned to 
the custodial parent. 

The City and County of San Francisco is compensated for its 
collection efforts in three ways: 

1) Welfare collections reduce the local cost of AFDC 

2) State and Federal programs reimburse the County for a 
portion of its cost of maintaining a collection 
program ("administrative reimbursement") 

3) Federal programs (SEIF and URESA) provide bonus 
payments to the County for each dollar collected. 



39 



These three revenue sources more than cover the cost of 
collections incurred by both the FSB and the Department of 
Social Services (DSS) . The Child Support Program Revenue, 
Expense and Profit Statement shows how this has worked to earn 
a profit for the County for the years '77-'78 and '78-'79. 

The reduction in "profit" for '78-' 79 is explained by three 
facts: (1) SEIF and URESA-R incentive formulas were changed 
downward in '78-' 79, (2) operating expenses for DSS increased 
sharply, and (3) the Proposition 13 "bail-out" bill picked up 
the local cost of AFDC thus eliminating not only the cost, but 
also the opportunity for savings. 

In 1978-79, the FSB interviewed 10,501 clients and opened 
files on 6,551 of them. They located 4,869 absent parents of 
which 4,416 were welfare cases and 452 were non-welfare cases. 
They made a total of 786 court appearances. The FSB had 17,129 
paying cases in 1978-79 which was an increase from 1,764 in 
1976-77. 

The FSB is unusual in City government; it provides a needed 
service to San Franciscans, and makes money for the County. 
The unit was expanded to its current strength in 1977-78 and is 
now at an adequate and most productive level. 



40 



COLLECTIONS 

77-78 78-79 

Welfare Collections 2,372,030 2,428,536 

Non-welfare Collections 1,289,341 1,243,348 

URESA-Responding* 634,495 

Other Collections 46,990 3,402 

Total 3,708,361 4,309,781 



*Prior to July 1, 1978, URESA-R collections were shown a part 
of Welfare and Non-Welfare collections. 



41 



CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM 
REVENUE, EXPENSE AND PROFIT STATEMENT 

77-78 



REVENUES 



SEIF AND URESA-R 



449,556 



78-79 



373,465 



EXPENDITURES 
FSB operating expenses 
DSS-IVD operating expenses 
Administrative Reimbursement 
Net expenditures 



1,996,781 

135,641 

2,228,150 

95,728 



2,118,536 

404,591 

2,477,317 

45,810 



OTHER 



Savings in SF's AFDC 



371,300 



Profit to City 



916,584 



327,655 



42 



CAREER CRIMINAL PROGRAM 

The San Francisco Career Criminal Program is a pioneering 
effort to target recidivist robbers and burglars for intensive 
prosecution. The program, which was initiated on July 20, 
1977, was originally funded by the Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration as a demonstration project. Because of its 
rapid and dramatic success, the State of California has funded 
its own Career Criminal Program for spreading this concept of 
prosecution throughout the State. 
Need for the Career Criminal Program 

The San Francisco Career Criminal Program is designed and 
operates on the theory that a disporportionate number of 
offenders are responsible for an inordinate number of crimes in 
the City and County of San Francisco. Because these offenders 
have either successfully eluded prosecution in the past, or 
have been repeat failures of the Criminal Justice System's 
efforts towards rehabilition , these criminals continued to 
victimize San Francisco's citizens. 

The Career Criminal Program directs specialized intensive 
prosecutorial efforts toward the career criminal. This has 
resulted in a greater number of State Prison commitments and 
longer periods of incarceration, thus interrupting otherwise 
thriving criminal careers. 

The Career Criminal Program restricts its activities to 
cases of career robbers and burglars. There are several 
reasons for this specialization. Robberies and burglaries are 



43 



high fear crimes. They involve a violation of peoples' "safe 
zone"; their body or their home. They deteriorate the quality 
of life that the City provides. 

No part of San Francisco is immune to these crimes. 
Moreover, their volume is so great that for every arrest made 
there are many crimes that remain unsolved. 

Robberies and burglaries are very costly but because of the 
number of unreported robberies and burglaries in San Francisco, 
and with unreliable measures of actual property loss and 
damage, it is difficult to determine the dollar amount of 
property loss (and the number of accompanying acts of violence) 
to the citizens of San Francisco. However, an estimate of 
these figures can be extrapolated from research data and sample 
studies available for these crimes. 

It is estimated that the "average annual offense rate" for 
the intensive or career criminal is 50.8 crimes. The average 
value of property loss to the victim of a career robber and 
burglar can be calculated by multiplying the crime rate by the 
average loss per offense for a total of $19,964.40. 

During the second year grant period, if the San Francisco 
Career Criminal Program convicts and commits to State Prison 
for an average incarceration of 4 years, approximately 60 
career criminals, we can estimate a savings to the citizens of 
the City and County of San Francisco of approximately 
$4,791,456. 



44 



It is further alleged that career robbers nd burglars use 
or threaten to use force on their victims at an average annual 
rate of 20.3 offenses. By multiplying the average 
incarceration of 4 years for approximately 60 career criminals, 
during the second year an estimated 4,800 actual or attempted 
assaults on the citizens of San Francisco can be prevented. 
The reduction of psychological trauma cannot be measured in 
monetary terms. 
How it works 

Each prospective career criminal case is evaluated 
according to an objective selection criteria which is based 
solely upon the criminal history of the defendant and does not 
take into account any factors which would affect the strength 
of the case. As a consequence, there as been a philosophical 
shift from the acceptance of the case based upon its 
evidentiary strength, to the acceptance of a case based solely 
upon the criminal history of the defendant. 

The Unit follows a non-plea bargaining policy, and makes a 
demand for State Prison on the top charge on all career 
criminal cases. As a result, career criminal prosecutors are 
prepared to go to trial on each case they handle. 

The program has established an effective police prosecutor 
relationship with the Inspectors from both the Robbery and 
Burglary Details of the San Francisco Police Department. The 
Inspectors, working closely with the Unit's attorneys and the 
two Career Criminal Investigators, have helped to increase 



45 



significantly, the effectiveness of case investigation, 
including: search and seizure; interviewing witnesses and 
victims; collection of evidence, etc., which has resulted in 
better and more thoroughly prepared cases for trial. 

The Career Criminal Program has followed a vertical 
representation policy on all career criminal cases to assure an 
effective and consistent prosecutorial strategy throughout the 
case. 

Smaller caseloads for each of the Unit's five attorneys 
allows more time for meticulous case investigation and a 
thorough and comprehensive preparation of each case. 

The overall success of this program is reflected in its 
statistics. To date, the program has accepted 302 cases. Two 
hundred twenty cases have reached a final disposition, with 75% 
of the defendants receiving a State Prison commitment. 



46 



CAREER CRIMINAL STATISTICS* 



Defendants accepted 
Active cases 

a) Municipal/Superior 

b) Bench warrant issued 

c) Fugitive 
Closed cases 
Cases Dismissed 

a) Victim unavailable 

b) Alibi verified 

c) Lack of positive identification 

d) 1538.5 (suppress) 

e) By the court 
Convictions 

a) Pleas of guilty 

b) Jury trial 

c) Probation revocation 
State Prison Commitments 
County Jail Commitments 

1203.03 
Jury trials 

a) Acquittals 

b) Convictions 



*The Career Criminal Program began on July 20, 1977 



77-78 


FY 78-79 


Total 


134 


165 


302 


43 


39 


89 

60 

20 

2 


91 


129 


220 


14 


18 


32 


12 


13 


25 


2 





2 





1 


1 





1 


1 





3 


3 


72 


106 


178 


50 


77 


127 


19 


29 


48 


3 





3 


69 


94 


164 


3 


10 


13 





1 


1 


24 


34 


58 


5 


5 


10 


19 


29 


48 



47 



>9d 

39B&D 

(6 

■ 

(s 

i 



SPECIAL PROSECUTION UNIT 

The Special Prosecutions Unit (SPU) was established in the 
summer of 1976 for the express purpose of investigating and 
prosecuting cases involving official corruption, sophisticated 
fraud and organized crime. The Unit is comprised of three 
attorneys, seven investigators, a secretary and a clerk typist. 
The Unit derives its principal funding through a discretionary 
grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the 
U.S. Department of Justice. 

Before the Unit was established, San Francisco lacked any 
local law enforcement response directed specifically to 
sophisticated white collar crime. Neither the District Attorney's 
office nor the Police Department had the resources to devote to 
the kind of investigation and prosecution mandated by such cases. 

During the past year, the SPU initiated sixty-four (64) major 
new investigations. Each of these cases requires enormous amounts 
of investigative time and resources to carry them through to 
arrest and conviction. By June of 1979, the SPU was pursuing 
twenty (20) active investigations and maintaining twenty-two 
additional cases in a pending/inactive state. 

In this twelve month period, SPU investigators made 66 arrests 
on a total of 462 felony counts, principally embezzlement, 
conspiracy and grand theft. A total of eighteen (18) cases were 
cleared by these arrests. In the same period forty-five (45) 
defendants entered pleas of guilty on one, or more of their 
pending charges, a further eleven (11) were convicted after trial 
and one defendant was acquitted 

48 



Statistics only begin to tell the story of the SPU. Unlike 
traditional prosecution units which handle large volumes of cases 
involving such crimes as burglary or robbery, the SPU must 
necessarily concentrate its resources on a relatively small number 
of cases due to their increased complexity. Most of these cases 
begin well before the arrest stage and require significant time 
for investigation. 

The best way to describe the Unit is by a brief description of 
some of the cases undertaken by the SPU. 

In October of 1977, the Unit brought embezzlement prosecutions 
against the Chief of Purchasing and the former Executive Director 
of the Housing Authority. The Chief of Purchasing pled guilty, 
was ordered to pay restitution and placed on probation. The case 
against the former Executive Director is still pending. 

In March of 1978, as a result of two months of intensive 
surveillance, the Unit arrested all 17 employees of the Parking 
Meter Division of the San Francisco Tax Collector's office on 
charges of embezzlement. These employees had been systematically 
looting the coins collected from parking meters for several years 
and, in addition, had been collecting eight-hour daily wages for 
four hours of work. The result of these arrests was an annual 
saving to the City of about 3/4 of a million dollars in embezzled 
coins alone. Prosecutions of a number of these employees are 
still pending. 

In June of 1978, the Unit secured indictments against a title 
company manager and a loan broker for embezzling at least 1.1 
million dollars from the title company; these prosecutions, too, 
are still pending. 

49 



In the early summer of 1978, the SPU smashed an international 
child pornography and prostitution ring headquartered in San 
Francisco. This case was a joint effort involving the F.B.I, and 
a host of other Federal agencies (Postal, Immigration, etc.) along 
with the Special Prosecutions Unit and the San Francisco Police 
Department. The case was opened upon information received from 
one of the Unit's informants. Two indictments have been sought to 
date, Federal and State grand juries are still looking into the 
matter and investigators are pouring over a mountain of material 
seized in the search of this outfit's offices and following up 
leads as far away as Mexico and Puerto Rico. 

One facet of this case which was of particular interest to the 
SPU was the fact that one of the principals in this pornography 
ring was employed by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency as the 
chief of its printing office. There have been allegations that he 
abused his position by utilizing Redevelopment Agency presses, 
supplies and personnel in printing of pornographic materials. Our 
portion of the continuing investigation focused upon this area. 

Later in the summer, the SPU joined with agents of U.S. 
Customs and Immigration and the California Highway Patrol to break 
up an organized car theft ring composed of Filipino nationals who 
have, for a number of years, been involved in the smuggling of 
stolen or embezzled luxury automobiles to the Philippines where 
they were sold for up to three times their value in California. 
Investigators believe that this ring may have been responsible for 
the smuggling of over 293 vehicles with a value in excess of 5 
million dollars. Intelligence information received concerning 
this ring indicates that a number of the principals have been 

50 



identified in the Philippines as ranking members of that nation's 
principal organized crime group or "Mafia". Several of them have 
extensive rap sheets in the Philippines including a man who 
murdered two policemen. 

It should be noted that before the SPU entered this case, the 
C.H.P. and Customs agents had been unable to interest either State 
of Federal prosecutors in this case, apparently because of its 
size and complexity. They had been turned away by the U.S. 
Attorney and another county's District Attorney who cited a lack 
of jurisdiction and lack of resources as reasons for not taking 
the case. 

Another case involves the granting of a major lease for the 
development of Pier 39 by the San Francisco Port Commission under 
circumstances that have given rise to allegations of bribery and 
conflict of interest against a variety of City officials and 
employees. This investigation required the examination of 
thousands of documents, Commission minutes and transcripts, 
financial records and plans as well as a large number of 
interviews . 

The investigation continued throughout the year. One attorney 
and one investigator worked full-time on the investigation. 
Witnesses were called before the grand jury weekly and reams of 
records and documents were reviewed. 

In August, 1978, a long term investigation bore fruit in the 
form of twenty-one indictments on charges of conspiracy, 
exbezzlement , forgery and others. This case involved the use of 
computer matching to uncover a conspiracy to embezzle public 
welfare funds from the Department of Social Services by submitting 

51 



false claims against the accounts of deceased welfare recipients. 
Three employees of the Department of Social Services were among 
the twenty-one indicted. To date, seventeen persons have been 
convicted of felonies and misdemeanors as a result of this 
investigation and prosecution. 

The fall and winter were dominated by two tragic events: the 
murder/suicides in Jonestown, Guyana and the assassination of San 
Francisco's Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. 
Beginning in mid-November when these events began to unfold with 
the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan and members of his party while 
touring the People's Temple complex in Jonestown, the SPU was 
placed on an emergency footing. All investigators were assigned 
to the People's Temple matter on a full-time basis including much 
overtime work. This state of emergency continued for several 
months . 

Almost all work on other investigations ceased. With the 
murder of the Mayor and a member of the Board of Supervisors, two 
of the investigators from the SPU were detailed to assist in that 
matter . 

During the Spring, the SPU continued to expand the scope and 
depth of its intelligence files concerning cult organizations. 
With one exception, however, the Unit was able to step down from 
the emergency status. 

The one exception occurred after the trial of former San 
Francisco Supervisor Dan White for the murders of Mayor George 
Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. The public reaction to the 
manslaughter verdicts in the case culminated on May 21, 1979 in 
one of the worst riots in San Francisco history and a heightening 

52 



in the tension between the gay community and the Police 
Department. As a result, all investigators from the Special 
Prosecutions Unit were assigned to monitor the situation and to 
work special security details for a period of several weeks. This 
emergency has also abated. 

There were six arrests made by investigators from the Unit 
during this period. One arrest, made at the request of the San 
Mateo District Attorney's Office, was of a former employee of that 
County, who had embezzled thousands of dollars from the San Mateo 
Department of Social Services. Two more arrests were made in the 
San Francisco Department of Social Services embezzlement case. 
This brought the total number of arrests in that case to twenty, 
leaving only one suspect unaccounted for. 

In early June, 1979, Special Prosecutions investigators and 
agents from the California Department of Motor Vehicles broke up 
an organization engaged in the manufacture of false identification 
papers (e.g. birth certificates, driver's licenses, alien 
registration cards) . Acting upon informant information, 
under-cover investigators were able to penetrate the organization 
and locate the manufacturing equipment and form blanks. All of 
these were seized and the head of the organization and his chief 
assistant were arrested; approximately a dozen illegal aliens were 
also arrested and deported (their arrests are not counted in the 
totals reported) . 

The activities of the Special Prosecutions Unit are unusual in 
local law enforcement in the level of detail and sophistication 
required and accordingly in the time required for investigation 
and prosecution of official corruption and conspiratorial crimes. 

53 



VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
The Victim/Witness Assistance Project (V/WAP) , which began 
operations on January 1, 1978, was funded in October, 1977 through 
a grant from the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council for $98,000. 
Under the sponsorship of the District Attorney's Office, the V/WAP 
seeks to make the often baffling criminal justice system more 
understandable and accessible to victims and witnesses alike. The 
goals of the project are twofold: 

1. "to assure that victims of violent crime are informed of 
the community and government resources available to them; 
and 

2. to make the criminal justice system more responsible to 
the needs of witnesses in criminal actions. 

To carry out these goals, the V/WAP provides a variety of 
direct services to victims and witnesses, including information 
and referral, transportation, liaison with criminal justice and 
social services agencies, assistance in applying for State 
Compensation for Victims of Violent Crimes, and reception and 
guidance at court. Additionally, the project conducts education 
and awareness work in the community and within the service 
delivery system regarding victimization, and services to victims 
and witnesses. 

Planning for the V/WAP spanned a two-year period with input 
from at least thirty organizations. The various agencies and 
groups involved, including the District Attorney's Office, the 
Police Department, the Barristers Club, and the Commission on 



54 



Aging, each held different expectations for the project based on 
their particular concerns. A ten member Policy Committee was 
formed, and functions to provide direction and focus for the 
project. 
Statement of Need 

Numerous studies have been conducted, most particularly that 
of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards 
and Goals, which have confirmed that citizens who become involved 
with the criminal justice system, either was victims of crimes or 
as witnesses to crimes, are in many ways further victimized by 
that system. Numerous protections and services are provided for 
the accused — which is as it should be — but practically nothing is 
provided for the victim or the witness. Their willing cooperation 
is assumed. 

Several surveys have shown that a tremendously large 
percentage of victims and witnesses were unware of both the rights 
and obligations that they have in those capacities. 

San Francisco has a rate of 71 violent crime victimizations 
per 1,000 population, according to a 12,000 household survey of 
the city conducted by the LEAA ( Criminal Victimization Surveys in 
13 American Cities , Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
U.S. Department of Justice, 1975). 

The survey indicated that approximately 40% of such victims 
said that they reported their victimization to the police. Only 
one city of the 13 major cities surveyed, Houston, reported a 
lower percentage of victims reporting to the police. The cities 
averaged 49% reporting by victims of violent crime. 



55 



On April 18, 1977, Mayor Goerge R. Moscone signed into law an 
ordinance establishing the Victim/Witness Assistance Program in 
San Francisco. The ordinance is a close parallel to the grant 
application which the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council approved 
for fiscal 1977-1978; the second-year grant application was also 
approved by the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council and became 
operational November 1, 1978. 
Program Description 

The V/WAP staff consists of an Executive Director, two Staff 
Assistants, and two Clerk-Stenographers. The Executive Director 
is responsible for overall project administration, and for liaison 
with the project's Policy Committee, as well as with the State 
Board of Control and criminal justice and social service agencies 
serving a mutual clientele. The Staff Assistants are responsible 
for day-to-day program activities. In this regard, they oversee 
the client caseload and engage in community outreach activities 
(e.g., presentations and training). 

The program relies on a core of trained volunteers to handle 
much of the client caseload. Currently, there is a pool of nearly 
twenty volunteers, with approximately ten working regularly, 
usually from four to eight hours per week. Volunteer recruitment 
is a continual process. Volunteers are recruited from all over 
San Francisco and attempts are always being made to assure that 
all of the City's diverse communites are represented in the V/WAP 

volunteer staff. 

There are three primary program components: victim, witness, 

and outreach. 



56 



Victim Component 

Any victim of a violent crime (i.e., a person who has been 
injured by an assailant during a criminal act) who resides in San 
Francisco is eligible for V/WAP services. 

Victims come to the project through referral by the police, 
the District Attorney's Office, and community-based programs; 
responses to project outreach efforts; or through self-selection, 
initiating their own contact with the project. Currently, police 
officers are asked to provide all victims of violent crimes with a 
card describing the State Compensation Program, which contains the 
V/WAP telephone number . 

Police reports on all victims of violent crimes are forwarded 
to the project on a daily basis. 

The primary focus of the project has been direct services to 
victims, usually involving assistance with filing for State 
Compensation, transportation, or information and referral. Client 
caseloads are assigned to volunteers, and the two staff assistants 
handle a large caseload as well. 
Witness Component 

The witness component of the program has not been as fully 
developed as the victim component, although the project does 
occasionally provide transportation to witnesses; and is in the 
process of drafting a Witness Handbook for dissemination to 
clients. Additionally, one volunteer works on a regular basis at 
the witness waiting room of the Youth Guidance Center. She 
answers inquiries from witnesses, checks people in and out of 



57 



court, watches young children while their parents testify, and 
generally oversees the flow of witnesses and serves as a liaison 
between the District Attorney and witnesses. 
Community Outreach Component 

In addition to providing direct client services, the V/WAP 
engages in community outreach which primarily involves public 
presentations, training, and participation on boards and 
committees. Community presentations usually focus on program 
services and community resources, while staff training for 
service-providing agencies stresses crisis intervention 
techniques, the effects of victimization, as well as available 
community resources. 

In the area of community services, the V/WAP has accomplished 
a variety of activities. A total of 45 public presentations were 
made from January 1, 1978, through July 15, 1978. Several 
presentations have been to neighborhood block clubs, often n 
collaboration with a Project SAFE member. Other presentations 
were made to such groups as the Asian American Bar Association; 
Police Community Relations Advisory Board groups; Children's 
Protective Services; San Francisco Community College; California 
Probation, Parole and Corrections Association; and numerous senior 
citizens groups. 
Statistics 

The statistics which follow provide a breakdown of cases 
closed during the period August 1978 through June 1979. Figures 
for the period prior to August 1978 are heavily influenced by 
program start-up considerations, are not indicative of program 



58 



operations, and are therefor not included. The breakdown of 
"services provided" includes claims for state compensation 
submitted but not awarded or denied and thus includes more cases 
than the other breakdowns which only include closed cases. 



59 



VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM STATISTICS 
Analysis of Cases Closed 78-79 
REFERRAL SOURCE # 

Police Report fol low- up 
Client initiated 
Social Service Agency 
District Attorney 
Form Letter 
Other and unknown 



TYPE OF CRIME 

Homicide 

Domestic Violence 

Assault 

Robbery 

Other and unknown 

Sexual Assault 

Robbery and Assault 



SERVICE PROVIDED 

Information 

State Compensation 

Emotional Support 

Referral 

Advocacy 

Transportation 

Other 

1255 100.0 

COMPENSATION CLAIMS 

No. of claims submitted 130 

Value of claims submitted $388,835 

No. of Claims Awarded 31 

Value of claims awarded $56,281 

No. of Claims Denied 5 



766 


66.2 


210 


18.2 


68 


5.9 


37 


3.2 


44 


3.8 


32 


2.8 


1157 


100.1 


55 


4.8 


199 


17.2 


211 


18.2 


79 


6.8 


40 


3.5 


237 


20.5 


336 


29.0 


1157 


loo.o 


587 


46.8 


119 


9.5 


129 


10.3 


176 


14.0 


195 


15.5 


33 


2.6 


16 


1.3 



60 



New Programs 

During 1978-79 the District Attorney's Office and the 
Victim/Witness Assistance Program applied for and were awarded 
Federal grant funds with which to implement two new Victim/Witness 
programs. These two awards amount to more than $250,000.00. 

The first award is to implement an Integrated 
Police-Prosecutor Witness Assistance Project which will focus on 
subpoena service and the provision of support services to 
witnesses subpoenaed. The purpose is to make witness 
participation a less onerous prospect, to improve witness 
cooperation, and to reduce the cost of subpoena service. 

The second award is for a Family Violence Project which will 
coordinate the panoply of services now provided by various 
agencies for victims of family violence. 

Both of these new programs build on the philosophy and 
commitment emobdied in the Victim/Witness Assistance Project; we 
cannot fully serve justice unless we serve the needs of those most 
directly influenced by criminal acts. 



61 



ELECTIONS/CAMPAIGNS LAW ENFORCEMENT 
During 1977-78 the District Attorney's office continued its 
policy of local enforcement of state campaign contribution 
reporting and election laws. The District Attorney has authority 
under the Political Reform Act of 1974 to prosecute all criminal 
violatins of the Act occurring within San Francisco County. 
During 1977-78 an assistant district attorney experienced in 
election and campaign law and one part-time investigator were 
assigned to supervise election and campaign law enforcement 
activities by this office. Regular liaison was established with 
the California Secretary of State's Office and the State Fair 
Political Practices Commission. In addition, the San Francisco 
Registrar of Voters was able to coordinate his own enforcement 
role with that of the District Attorney in the area of candidate 
and committee report filings. 

Preceding, during and after the November 8, 1977 General 
Municipal Election and the June 6, 1978 Primary Election this 
office investigated all complaints of improper registration of 
voters and other election related matters to insure the security 
and accuracy of balloting in San Francisco. Although no criminal 
charges were filed, numerous voter registration irregularities 
were ordered corrected. The District Attorney's Office also 
undertook, by way of interviews and public announcements, to 
inform candidates and voters of their rights and responsibilities 
in the conduct of the city's election. 



62 



The proper filing of all required campaign reports was 
strictly monitored by the District Attorney and late filers 
were notified to comply or face possible criminal prosecution 
or a suit for civil damages for their non-compliance with the 
Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 18100 et seq) or 
the San Francisco Compaign Contribution Control Ordinance (San 
Francisco Administrative Code Section 16.501 et seq). 

Although this office does not render advisory legal 
opinions, the staff of the District Attorney's Office did make 
itself readily available to candidates or their supporters to 
assist them in complying with the increasingly complex body of 
law that governs elections and campaigning in California. 



63 



WELFARE FRAUD 

During 1977-78 the District Attorney's Office consolidated 
its social welfare crime investigation and prosecution 
activities. One assistant district attorney was assigned to 
supervise and coordinate prosectuions of welfare program 
violators and to provide liaison with the many local, state, 
and federal agencies dealing with social welfare. The 
principal programs where state criminal law violations occur 
are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) , General 
Assistance (GA) , Food Stamps, and Medi-Cal. 

Beginning in October, 1977 the Department of Social 
Services in coordination with the District Attorney's Office 
and federal authorities, initiated a series of computer 
matching programs to detect city or federal employees who were 
receiving various types of social welfare benefits because of 
their failure to report their true income. The District 
Attorney obtained 13 convictions of this type of offender and 
in addition to other punishment, $49,402.50 in restitution was 
ordered to be paid to the City and County of San Francisco. 
The computer matching of the various city welfare rolls to the 
city and federal employment rolls has become a regular feature 
of welfare fraud investigations. 

During late 1978 investigations were concluded by the 
Special Prosecutions Unit of the District Attorney's Office and 
the Supervising Deputy for Social Welfare Crime into acts of 
corruption by employees of the Department of Social Services 
involved in the Home Chore Worker program. The San Francisco 



64 



Grand Jury indicted 21 persons for acts of embezzlement, forgery, 
fraud, and conspiracy. By July, 1979, 18 persons had been 
convicted of felony and misdemeanor charges resulting from this 
investigation. Three defendants named in the indictments remained 
at large during the reporting period and are believed to have fled 
the jurisdiction. 

During 1977-78 the function of prosecution of welfare check 
thefts and forgeries was re-assigned to the Fraud Team of the 
District Attorney's Office with back-up and liaison provided by 
the Welfare Fraud Section's supervising district attorney. 

Prosecutions for violating state medical assistance (Medi-Cal) 
laws, including investigations and prosecutions of fraud by 
medical services providers, are now conducted by the Social 
Welfare Crime section. The investigations are conducted in 
corrdination with the California Department of Health's Medi-Cal 
Fraud Investigations Unit located in San Francisco. 

During 1977-78 there were 63 prosecutions begun for various 
crimes against the social welfare system. During the same period 
38 convictions were obtained, both felonies and misdemeanors, and 
a total of $134,348.00 in restitution was ordered. 

In the 1978-79 reporting period there were 48 prosecutions 
initiated for various criminal violations of social welfare 
programs. During this period there were 43 convictions, both 
felonies and misdemeanors, and a total of $249,116.06 in 
resistution was ordered. 



65